SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
| Michael E. DiRosa, |
) Case Number |
|
) |
| Plaintiff, |
) |
|
) Scire Facias Complaint |
| V. |
) and brief in support |
|
) |
|
) |
| State of Louisiana, |
) |
| Defendants. |
) |
|
) |
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Comes
now into court Michael E. DiRosa, a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, appearing in proper person, unschooled in the Law,
demanding all of his rights under the Constitution of the United
States and the Bill of Rights. To date it has been an undisputed
fact that Michael E. DiRosa is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana.
If anyone should have any cause to believe that Michael E. DiRosa is
not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, I do demand that they bring
forth their contention so that I may denounce it as the fraud that it
is. In point of fact the issue of this complaint is my status as a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana for it is apparent that my right to
be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, with all of the Federal and
State Rights pertaining thereto, has been illegally stolen. If I
appear to say or do anything that would strip me of my right to be a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana I do now state that it was done in
ignorance and/or error or my intent has been misunderstood. It is my
right to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana that is in dispute.
I come to regain my rights as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana,
not to abandon them.
JURISDICTION
Original
jurisdiction vests in the Supreme Court of the United States by
virtue of Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution,
for the State of Louisiana is a party to this action and this is a
Case, in Law and Equity, arising under his Constitution , the Laws of
the United States and Treaties made, or which shall be made under
their authority.
Jurisdiction
vests in the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of Article
I of the Bill of Rights in that there is no other court in the United
States of America competent to hear this challenge. There is not
other court in the United States of America in which I may, by right
as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, petition the Government for
redress of Grievance.
Surely it can not be contended that my standing in the
Supreme Court of the States United is not proper subject matter for
the Court, for no other court could so rule. The obligation to
determine who has or does not have standing before the Court is
inherent in its right to exist.
Nor, could it be argued that Scire Facias has been
abolished as Rule 81 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does
state. The writ has been abolished, however “Relief heretofore
available by mandamus or scire facias may be obtained by appropriate
action or by appropriate motion under the practice prescribed in
these rules” . Rule 81 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
(b) Scire Facias and Mandamus.
“The writs of scire facias and mandamus are
abolished. Relief heretofore available by mandamus or scire facias
may be obtained by appropriate action or by appropriate motion under
the practice prescribed in these rules.” Rule 81 (b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
What is the appropriate action for scire facias? It is
an original action.
Scire Facias
"Non-Judicial records are letters patent and
corporate charters. The writ, when founded on a non-judicial record,
is the commencement and foundation of an original action; and its
purpose is always to repeal or forfeit the record. Quo warranto is
the usual and more appropriate remedy to forfeit corporate charters
and offices; and Scire Facias, though used for that purpose, is more
especially applicable to the repeal of letters patent."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091
Scire Facias
"In practice. A Judicial writ, founded upon some
record, and requiring the person against whom it is brought to show
cause why the party bringing it should not have advantage of such
record, or (in the case of a scire facias to repeal letters patent)
why the record should not be annulled and vacated 2 Archb. Pr. K. B.
86; Pub St. Mass. p. 1295
... It is used more rarely as a mode of proceeding
against special bail in their recognizance, and as a means of
repealing letters patent, in which case it is an original
proceeding..."
Black's law Dictionary Third Edition, page 1586
There is only one Court which has the power and
obligation to hear an original action with the State as a Defendant.
That Court is the Supreme Court of the United States.
If this
is not standing enough I do claim the right under the definition and
intent of Scire Facias to appear in the name of the “crown”
to repeal the illegal grant and annul the letters patent for when
the illegal grant occurred it did also illegally deprive the
Plaintiff of the right to redress of grievance in the Supreme Court
of the United States as a Citizen of the States of Louisiana, among
others.
“the injured party is permitted to use the name of
the crown in a suit by scire facias for the repeal of the grant.”
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091
If this is not deemed sufficient jurisdiction I do
reserve the right to enhance my jurisdictional grounds. Due to the
dire emergency in which I find myself, imprisoned, abandoned and
condemned to death, absent charge and trial, This document was
created in haste as time is of the essence as my executioner may come
as soon as tomorrow.
NOTICE
OF ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT
AND
IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH
I do
hereby notice this court that I am currently illegally imprisoned and
condemned to death, absent charge and trial, awaiting my executioner.
This prison is as real and confining as any made of brick and steel.
I am forbidden, by law, the right to own and use any
“device by which persons or things may be transported upon a
public highway or bridge.” La R.S. 32:1(92)
Hence, the bounding wall of this prison is at the distance that I can
walk in a day, or half of that distance if a habitat is maintained,
carrying my possessions on my person or in a push cart. This prison
also includes the penalty of time required in transit. This is
slightly better than house arrest and I have termed it “walking
distance prison.” I am only allowed to exceed the bounds of my
prison if I beg or pay a slave / bond servant of the State of
Louisiana to escort me. I am also forbidden, by the gun barrel of
the State of Louisiana, from owning or operating an emergency
evacuation vehicle. When the next nature sent or man made disaster
should befall this area I am to be left here to die for I have been
denied ownership or use of any means of escape. By the grace of God,
I have already bested three executioners, hurricanes Katrina and Rita
and the man made levy debacle and flood. My next executioner may
come as soon as tomorrow. My very life is at stake and I have been
forced to institute this action from my walking distance prison, in
haste. Law libraries and my previous research are beyond the bounds
of my prison.
NOTICE
OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
This
defendant does rebut the presumption that this Defendant does know
and understand the Law. This Defendant has little better than a high
school education and has had no formal training in law and is barely
competent in the use of colloquial English and has had no formal
training in the dialect of the English language known colloquially as
legalese. This Defendant does even rebut the presumption of
knowledge of the law as the State of Louisiana has mandated the high
school curriculum and has not seen fit to include even the basics of
law therein. Hence, the State of Louisiana is culpable in my
ignorance of law. Considering the culpability of the State of
Louisiana in my ignorance of law, I do challenge the presumption that
I know and understand the law as no such instruction is available in
the State of Louisiana's own schools. On what facts can this
presumption of law rest?
PARTIES
Plaintiff
Michael E. DiRosa (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is a Citizen of
the State of Louisiana, appearing in proper person and is the owner
of the rights illegally alienated. If this is not standing enough I
do claim the right under the definition and intent of Scire Facias to
appear in the name of the “crown” to repeal the illegal
grant and annul the letters patent for when the illegal grant
occurred it did also illegally deprive the Plaintiff of the right to
redress of grievance in the Supreme Court of the United States as a
Citizen of the States of Louisiana, among others.
“the injured party is permitted to use the name of the crown in
a suit by scire facias for the repeal of the grant.” Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091
Plaintiff
is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that:
The
State of Louisiana, Defendant, is a Sovereign State of the States
United. However, the Plaintiff can not be sure of the present
Sovereignty of the State of Louisiana as disturbing evidence has
surfaced that implies that the Sovereignty of the State may have been
stolen along with its republican form of government and virtually all
of the rights, guaranteed by both Federal and State Constitutions, of
its Citizens.
C O M P
L A I N T I
The
State of Louisiana did illegally, by letter patent or other means,
alienate its territory or a portion thereof which did have the effect
of alienating my right to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana by
making it impossible to become a Citizen of the State of Louisiana by
a bona fide residence therein. If the ability to become a Citizen of
the State of Louisiana is dependent on a bona fide residence on its
eroding land mass, than the State of Louisiana has no right to, in
any way, alienate my rights inherent in the land. The State of
Louisiana has made a grant of my alienable and unalienable rights
with the land. A grant it never had nor has any right to make since
the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution which did tie our most sacred rights to the land mass.
In fact, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment did nullify any
previous land grants for it did tie our most sacred rights to the
land and one can not be alienated without the other. The rights of a
Citizen of a State are unalienable as now is the land mass required
for a bona fide residence therein. The protection of the right to be
a Citizen of the State, and the rights pertaining thereto, is what
the Federal Government was instituted to protect. The loss of my
right to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana and condemned to
prison until death, absent charge, trial and redress of grievance,
unless I swear allegiance to a central government, can only be found
in the worst fears of the founders. Even George Washington's men
would not swear allegiance to the Untied States. They were State
Citizens and their rights, as such, were what they were fighting for.
Imagine how the Dred Scott Court must be turning. We are now all
members of that poor unfortunate race of sub humans not fit for
freedom or to be known as free men. For there can be no doubt that
whenever the letter patent, by whatever name called, did originate,
it did steal from the inhabitants of the land, not only the land, but
also their right to be a Citizen of the State along with their right
to redress of grievance as a Citizen of the State, and the rights of
all who may hereinafter dwell. We did not raise the African American
up from nigger, we made niggers of us all. Can it be pretended that
this is what We, the People or the founders intended.
The writ
(now an original action) “constitutes the declaration, to which
the defendant MUST plead; 1 Blackf, 297” Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091[emphasis added]
Scire Facias
"In practice. A
Judicial writ, founded upon some record, and REQUIRING the person
against whom it is brought to show cause why the party bringing it
should not have advantage of such record, or (in the case of a scire
facias to repeal letters patent) why the record should not be
annulled and vacated 2 Archb. Pr. K. B. 86; Pub St. Mass. p.
1295 Black's
law Dictionary Third Edition, page 1586 [emphasis added]
When the crown is deceived by a false suggestion, or when it has
granted anything which by law it can not grant...; and so, in any
case, of the grant of a patent which is injurious to another, the
injured party is permitted to use the name of the crown in a suit by
scire facias for the repeal of the grant. Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091
C O M P
L A I N T II
The
State of Louisiana did illegally, by letter patent or similar means
of another name, alienate its Sovereignty or a portion thereof which
did have the effect of alienating my rights pertaining thereto. This
fact is confessed by Article
II §26 entitled State
Sovereignty.
Section 26. “The people of this state have the
sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and
sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and
enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which
is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the
United States of America in congress assembled.” Article II §26
of the Louisiana State Constitution.
Never have I seen a more flagrant example of
proclaiming with one hand while taking with the other. It must be
remembered, at this juncture, that the government of the State of
Louisiana has, for I do not know how long, been completely overrun by
citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana. From the
Governor to the army of the invading state known as policemen, to
include the legislature and judicial branches of government, all are
citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana. What
Sovereignty, and attached rights, have this invading army stolen?
Again, they do not own the rights attached to the Sovereignty of the
State of Louisiana. It is hereby demanded that the State of
Louisiana show cause why the party bringing it should not have
advantage of such record, or (in the case of a scire facias to repeal
letters patent) why the record should not be annulled and vacated.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT I
There can be no doubt that my claim that I am a Citizen
of the State of Louisiana and have, by my own volition, became a
citizen of the State Louisiana, of the States United, by a bona fide
residence therein, and thereby my standing in the Supreme Court of
the States United is at the heart of this issue. If the State of
Louisiana has no territory left in which I may claim a bona fide
residence therein, I do claim a bona fide residence in the name of
the State of Louisiana if that is the only territory left. Who can
contest my claim of Citizenship in the State of Louisiana but the
State of Louisiana, unless it is impossible to be a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana. Yet, the federal admiralty judges of the First
Parish Court did so summarily rule without any showing of proof to
the contrary.
Curiously, the State of Louisiana has never challenged
my claim that I am a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. The Clerk of
the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did try to steal my claim
to Citizenship in the State of Louisiana but not by direct challenge.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did
intentionally and repeatedly, over and above my timely and continuous
objections, seek to perpetrate a fraud upon the Supreme Court of the
United States by fabricating a chain of appeal that does not exist
and illegally and selectively conjoining two cases to match the
fabricated chain of appeal. He did that for the obvious end of
defrauding the Supreme Court of the United States into believing, had
I sought error in the Supreme Court of the United States, that I had
sought jurisdiction of these court and, hence, I was a citizen of the
United States and not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana as I claim.
Not unlike what had happened to Hans in Hans v. Louisiana 34 U.S. 1
(1890), to be discussed later.
Now I find myself arguing a case before the clerk of
the Supreme Court of the United States. He keeps claiming that I am
a citizen of the United States, never substantiated, along with a
specious argument of insufficiency, never specified, and does keep
returning my legally filed documents over and above my timely and
continuous demands for a judicial determination of my objections, at
the risk of my life.
Surely it could not be because I have claimed to be a
free and natural born Citizen of the States of Louisiana, currently
difficult since the fourteenth amendment. However, of my own
volition, I did become one at birth by a bona fide residence in the
State of Louisiana, or a bona fide residence in the name of the State
of Louisiana if no territory is left to the State.
Surely it could not be because I have cited the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, for Rule 17 (2) of the Rules of the United
States Supreme Court does state that I may take them as guides. On
what he bases his contention that I am not a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana he will not state despite repeated demands and he has
repeatedly summarily ruled despite repeated demands for a judicial
determination of my standing and cause of action.
Using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a guide I
find in Rule 83 (b) does state in part:
“No sanction or other disadvantage may be imposed for
noncompliance with any requirement not in federal law, federal rules,
or the local district rules unless the alleged violator has been
furnished in the particular case with actual notice of the
requirement.”
Since I have maintained that I am a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana, currently an uncontested fact even by the State
of Louisiana, any contention to the contrary must be a contested
issue of fact to be determined by a judicial ruling or by the
demanded jury. Yet, the clerk of the United States Supreme Court has
offered no facts to contest my claim of Citizenship. His total legal
argument seems to be “you are not.”
The Clerk of Court did supply one cite, Hans v.
Louisiana 134 U.S. 1 (1890). What a ridiculous cite. In the first
place, Hans was in the wrong court. A Citizen of the State of
Louisiana would have taken his complaint to the United States Supreme
Court. Only a citizen of the United States would have gone to a
circuit Court.
Hans, like the butchers in the Slaughterhouse cases,
did inadvertently, and possibly on the incompetent representation of
a lawyer as did the butchers, declare himself to be a member of that
poor unfortunate race devoid of rights by appearing in a court of
Congress and not of the Constitution. He was not originally
embarrassed by the eleventh amendment to the constitution, he was
embarrassed by Article III Section 2 of the Constitution and the
construction of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution decreed
by the Supreme Court which only then caused the eleventh amendment to
be embarrassing.
“In giving construction to any of those articles,
it is necessary to keep this main purpose steadily in view, though
the letter and spirit of those articles must apply to all cases
coming within their purview, whether the party concerned be of
African descent or not.” syllabus of the Slaughterhouse Cases
83 U.S. 36.
As long as I am squashing Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1
(1890) I might as well do a complete job to avoid any unnecessary
delays as my life is in imminent danger of forfeit.
Interestingly enough is the change of the test for the
interpretation of the Constitution. In the Slaughterhouse Cases the
test was that it says what it says no matter what you meant. In Hans
v. Louisiana the test is what did they mean when the founders passed
that amendment.
There was great fanfare and eloquent waxing about
Sovereign Immunity and the intent of the founders of this country in
regards to the Eleventh Amendment and in Hans v Louisiana. Yet not a
mention that the founders had never envisioned a second class of
second class citizens, nor the empowering of the dreaded and much
feared central government. Nor had the founders ever envisioned that
citizen of this central government would be living under the
domination of a State with no recourse of grievance save with
permission of the tyrant State. Could the founders have envisioned a
time when the redress of grievance guaranteed every citizen and so
carefully protected could be stripped from most if not all men. This
is no more than a grant of right, to the States, to steal anything of
value, including their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, from
this poor unfortunate race of halfling Citizens with no fear of
redress of grievance, save with the permission of the thieving tyrant
State.
Now let us contrast that with the Slaughterhouse Cases
83 U.S. 36. There was no discussion on the intent of the founders in
regard to the fourteenth amendment and the empowering of the dreaded
and feared central government. There was no discussion on the intent
of the framers and ratifiers of the fourteenth amendment. Had
Congress, the States United, and We, the People, vanished off of the
face of the earth? On an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States that will form a new class of persons and empower the dreaded
central government, in direct opposition to the intent of the
founders. an amendment that was so badly worded that even the
Justices of the Supreme Court could not even agree on what it said,
where was the question of the intent of the framers? Even the
attorney for the butchers did not understand what the amendment said
and did argue the wrong case, a fact admitted by the Court. Yet,
where was justice for the butchers? Was the lawyer representing the
butchers disbarred for demonstrated incompetence, by order of the
Court? How could they, the Justices themselves could not agree on
what it said. Had the butchers vanished from the face of the earth?
Could no one ask them if that was what they meant to do, or did they
have an incompetent lawyer? No the presumption of knowledge of the
law, at the doctoral level, did presume that they meant to loose
their case on a misunderstanding of the law by their incompetent
lawyer. If the presumption of knowledge of law is to be maintained,
why are lawyers allowed to represent people? The presumption of
knowledge of the law, at the doctoral level, surely would preclude
the use or necessity of lawyers representing anyone, save themselves.
In fact, the presumption of knowledge of the law, at the doctoral
level, does neuter the presumption of innocence, the only presumption
of merit, and does evict justice from the practice of law.
Which interpretation had the States ratified? Surely,
the Supreme Court could not ask the State of Louisiana, for their
people were unrepresented and their interest were uncared for.
Surely no one could ask the framers of the Constitutional Amendment
and the ratifiers what they did believe that the amendment meant when
they created and ratified it for then the dubious origins of the
fourteenth amendment might have come to light.
Nor did the Supreme Court seek the intent of the
framers of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to the problem of
immigration. Was it the intent of the founders of this country or
the framers of the fourteenth amendment or its ratifiers to strip the
power of control of immigration from the Federal Government and place
it the control of any fleet footed mother who can time her delivery
to a dash across the border, as is now the case?
Now let us use the same criteria used in the
Slaughterhouse Cases in reference to the eleventh amendment. The
criteria is that it is not what you meant but what was said. In the
Slaughterhouse Cases the criteria is states as:
“The language is, "No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if
this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State
against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen
of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and
used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the
very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that
the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a
purpose.” Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36.
Now let us apply that test to the Eleventh Amendment by
paraphrase.
The language is “The Judicial Power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens
of another States, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a
forfeiture of the guarantee of redress of grievance by Citizens of a
State against their own State, that the words Citizens of that State
should be left out when other Citizens were so carefully delineated.
It is too clear for argument that the phraseology was adopted
understandingly and, with a purpose.
I leave it for the reader to decide which is the goose
and which is the gander.
There can be no doubt that Hans did loose his
unalienable rights by ignorantly walking through the wrong door, as
there can be no doubt that the butchers in the Slaughterhouse cases
did loose their unalienable rights by ignorantly claiming rights
under the fourteenth amendment. How tenuous the term “unalienable
rights” has become since the adoption, despite its cloud, of
the fourteenth amendment. Since the adoption of the fourteenth
amendment, despite its dubious origins, the sword of Damocles was
better supported than are our unalienable rights.
In point of fact, the contention that a Citizen of a
State can originate an original action against his State in the
Supreme Court of the Untied States is supported by Hans v. Louisiana
which states:
'It may be accepted as
a point of departure unquestioned,' said Mr. Justice MILLER in
Cunningham v. Railroad Co.,109 U.S. 446, 451, 3 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 292,
'that neither a state nor the United States can be sued as defendant
in any court in this country without their consent, except
in the limited class of cases in which a state may be made a party in
the supreme court of the United States by virtue of the original
jurisdiction conferred on this court by the constitution.'
Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1 (1890) [emphasis added]
Had Hans chosen the correct door of a Citizen of the
State, the door to the Supreme Court of the States United, he would
have prevailed as the State of Louisiana had surrendered its
Sovereign immunity in this issue by Article I Section 10 of the
United States Constitution which demands that a State honor its
contracts with Citizens of the State.
One last note on Hans v. Louisiana before I dismiss it
completely. It is claimed, in Hans v. Louisiana that:
“To what purpose would it be to authorize suits
against states for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be
enforced? It is evident that it could not be done without waging war
against the contracting state;” Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1
(1890)
Waging war against the contracting State did not seem
to be a problem when the breach of contract was secession from the
Union. Why should it be any different with Article I Section 10.
Few limitations were placed on the Sovereignty of the States and
honoring their contracts was one. Any other contention is tantamount
to a license to steal from anyone who needs State permission to
complain. But, you must be in the correct court.
As anyone can see from my repeated attempts to file an
original action against the State of Louisiana, by a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana, for theft of my emergency evacuation vehicle and
rights, illegal imprisonment consisting of abandonment in a walking
distance prison, absent charge and trial, until death by natural or
man made disasters, that I have carefully avoided the mistakes of the
butchers and Hans. I did challenge the jurisdiction of the First
Parish Court. I did appeal directly to the Supreme Court of
Louisiana claiming and proving that the State had no cause of action
nor standing, among other grounds, and when the Louisiana Supreme
Court, contrary to the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana and the code of Judicial conduct did and still do refuse to
rule making an appeal of error impossible except under the principle
that to take no action is an action, I did initiate an original
action in the Supreme Court of the Unites States as would a Citizen
of the State of Louisiana, by right, which satisfied the requirements
of Hans v. Louisiana. Nor did I claim any right under the
Constitution above the Twelfth Amendment of that document as would a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana, which did comply with the
requirements of the Slaughterhouse Cases. This can be clearly seen
in the documents I have included as Exhibit A containing the original
complaint and the numerous objections to their return by the clerk of
Court, which I still maintain with this document. A true and correct
copy of said exhibit is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by
reference, as if set forth fully herein. Yet, despite these
precautions, I have so failed to raise a contested issue of fact in
regards to my Citizenship that a mere clerk can summarily rule that I
have no redress of grievance in this Court and, absent permission of
the thief and enslaver, the State of Louisiana, I must submit or die.
There can be only one explanation for the observable
facts. The State of Louisiana has, by letter patent or other
equivalent means by whatever name, alienated the rights of the
Citizens of the State of Louisiana with the territory of the State of
Louisiana.
If we look to the Slaughterhouse Cases we can find the
requirements to become a Citizen of a State, the highest honor a
State or the United States can endow.
“It is that a citizen of the United States can, of
his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a
bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens
of that State. To these may be added the rights secured by the
thirteenth and fifteenth articles of amendment, and by the other
clause of the fourteenth, next to be considered.”
Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36.
If the clerk of Court for the United States Supreme
Court has the unshakable belief that I am a citizen of another state
and, thereby, have no standing in the United States Supreme Court he
must know that it is so impossible to become a Citizen of the State
of Louisiana and that a statement of why he so believes is
superfluous due to the impossibility of my claim of State
Citizenship, despite demand.
Since my will to become a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, by my own violation, is obvious and unassailable, there
must be no land on which I may claim a bona fide residence therein.
This can be the only reason why the State of Louisiana
has changed its Constitution to forbid Citizens of the State of
Louisiana from holding public office as is confessed in Article IV
Section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled
“Qualifications” which does state:
“To be eligible for any statewide elective office,
a person, by the date of his qualification as a candidate, shall have
attained the age of twenty-five years, be an elector, and have been a
citizen of the United States and of this state for at least the
preceding five years. “ Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana
State Constitution
It must be impossible to be a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana by a bona fide residence therein. If it is impossible to
be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, then who could complain and
to whom could they complain? The overthrow of the State of Louisiana
is successful. Not only did the citizens of a state foreign to the
State of Louisiana steal the State of Louisiana, the stole the right
to complain and hid the evidence in the presumption of legality
unless exactly correctly challenged. Of course, they do not have to
tell you why your position is incorrect because it is presumed to be
common knowledge, despite specific demands for the knowledge and
rebuttal of the presumption.
There can be no doubt that the fourteenth amendment to
our Constitution has tied the right to be a Citizen of the State to
the land of the State and a bona fide residence thereon. To alienate
one is to alienate the other. To the abused people on the land, not
only did they loose their land, their Citizenship in the State, their
redress of grievance, save with permission of the thief, but they
also instantly became one of that poor unfortunate race so subhuman
that slavery was all that they were good for, unless, of course, if
their master gave them permission to complain.
If, of course, a grant of land was issued before the
adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it must also be nullified for
the inhabitants would not loose land they did not own, but they would
still loose their Citizenship in the State, their redress of
grievance, save with permission of the thief and they instantly
became one of that poor unfortunate race so subhuman that slavery was
all that they were good for, unless, of course, if their master gave
them permission to complain. Again, how tenuous has the words
“unalienable rights” become.
One more swipe at presumptions of Law. Correct me if I
am wrong. It is a presumption of Law that legislation is presumed to
be legal unless challenged, no matter how flawed it is on its face.
Is this why the clerk of the Supreme Court of Louisiana chose to
falsify the record rather than directly challenge my claim to be a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana? Is this why the clerk of the
Supreme Court of the United States does refuse, despite repeated
demands, to state on what grounds he does claim that I am not a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana. If they had told me that I could
not be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana because there is no land
on which to claim a bona fide residence, I would have challenged it
directly and sooner. My continuation as a slave demands that I not
know the correct question to ask. If the legislation is sufficiently
hidden and the population kept sufficiently ignorant of the
principles of Law, theft, slavery and the overthrow and enslavement
of one State by another state are to be tolerated and nurtured until
someone deduces the correct question and challenges it correctly.
After all, I am presumed to know and understand the Law, at the
doctoral level, and evidently, this presumption will stand despite
rebuttal by an open declaration of ignorance of Law. Is it no wonder
that Law and Justice have so far diverged. Obviously, in this
country as it currently stands, what you don't know is fatal and
justice is just the title for judge of the plantation.
There
can be no doubt that an alienation of the land has occurred. There
can be no doubt that, with the adoption of the fourteenth amendment
of the Constitution, the right to be a Citizen of a State has been
trampled into the dirt of the State. There can be no doubt that to
alienate the land of a State is to alienate unalienable rights.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT II
I have, in this document and in the complaint filed but
thwarted, so far, by the adjudgments of the clerk of the United
States Supreme Court who did summarily adjudge my complaint to be
insufficient and my standing nonexistent without reason or comment,
proved that the State of Louisiana has stolen every vehicle,
including bicycle and ridden animal, by which persons and property
can be transported on roads or bridges. I have proved conclusively,
by confessions of the State of Louisiana, that the State of Louisiana
has instituted slavery. I have also proved conclusively, by
confessions of the State of Louisiana, that the State of Louisiana
has stolen virtually every right for which the Federal Government was
instituted to protect, including my right to redress of grievance.
I have also proved conclusively, by confession of the State of
Louisiana, that there is not one Citizen of the State of Louisiana in
any office of the State of Louisiana. I have also proved
conclusively that the State of Louisiana did illegally alienate my
rights by an illegal alienation of the land. Is it any wonder that I
seek to find what other rights the invading army of a state foreign
to the State of Louisiana have stolen. It is only through knowledge
of these thefts and usurpations that I may correctly challenge them,
for one obviously, as exhibit A clearly shows, can not successfully
challenge their effect nor raise a contested issue of fact and defeat
the obviously flawed presumption of legality. Currently, the
presumption of Law is that you can steal anything you want as long as
you can keep anyone from finding out how you stole it. They can know
and prove that you stole it, they can even show and prove that you
still possess it after you have stolen it, but, until someone finds
out how your stole it and challenges it exactly correctly, it is
legal. Surely, no sworn associate will tell.
Harsh words? I could not even get the judges of the
First Parish Court to tell me in what jurisdiction I stood, despite
repeated and pointed questions, as they summarily adjudged that I did
understand the charges against me, that they had jurisdiction,
despite my challenge, that the State had a valid cause of action,
despite my challenge, and that this matter should be set for trial,
over my objection. Nor could I get the clerk of the United States
Supreme Court to tell me on what facts did he base his summary
judgment that I am not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana as he
repeatedly summarily adjudged my standing to be flawed despite
knowledge that my life was, and is, in imminent peril and over my
repeated objections and demands for a judicial determination. To
date, the clerk's total and brilliant legal rebuttal to my claim of
Citizenship in the State of Louisiana and the standing pertaining
thereto is “are not”.
Article II Section 26 in the Louisiana State
Constitution does confess that the Sovereignty of the State of
Louisiana has been stolen, with my rights pertaining thereto.
Article II §26.
State Sovereignty
Section 26. “The people of this state have the
sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and
sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and
enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which
is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the
United States of America in congress assembled.” Article II §26
of the Louisiana State Constitution.
I do, therefore, demand that the State of Louisiana
show cause why the party bringing it should not have advantage of
such record, or (in the case of a scire facias to repeal letters
patent) why the record should not be annulled and vacated. “Where
rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
CONCLUSION
As the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 does tell us
there is only one criteria to transform oneself, by his own volition,
into a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. It is by a bona fide
residence therein.
“It is that a citizen of the United States can, of
his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a
bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens
of that State. To these may be added the rights secured by the
thirteenth and fifteenth articles of amendment, and by the other
clause of the fourteenth, next to be considered.”
Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36.
For the clerk of the United States Supreme Court to
continuously, despite repeated, continuous and timely objections and
demands for a judicial determination of my standing, summarily rule
that I am a citizen of the United States and have no redress of
grievance nor standing in the Supreme Court it must be impossible to
be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana.
Since there is only one criteria remaining, bona fide
residence therein, it must be impossible to maintain a bona fide
residence because the State of Louisiana no longer owns the land.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution did inextricably bind our most sacred rights to the
land. For the State of Louisiana to alienate the land, it must also
alienate my unalienable rights. The State of Louisiana does not own
my unalienable rights inextricably conjoined with the land. Any such
alienation of the land can not be valid whether executed before or
after the adoption, despite its cloud, of the fourteenth amendment of
the United States Constitution. For, with the adoption of the
fourteenth amendment, despite its dubious origins, anyone residing on
alienated land, in perpetuity, would be alienated from their
unalienable rights, in perpetuity.
As a side note, if I sell my bona fide residence to
move to a new residence, do I become one of those, of that poor
unfortunate race, not fit for freedom during the move? Would I be
eligible for affirmative action programs during the move? How
tenuous the term unalienable has become.
There can be no doubt that an illegal alienation of the
land, with the rights inherent in the land, has occurred, by whatever
name used be it letter patent, treaty, compact, etc.
There can be no doubt that Sovereignty of the State of
Louisiana, with the rights inherent therein, has been illegally
alienated by citizens of a State foreign to the State of Louisiana
after invasion.
I do initiate this action “requiring the person
against whom it is brought to show cause why the party bringing it
should not have advantage of such record, or (in the case of a scire
facias to repeal letters patent) why the record should not be
annulled and vacated” Black's law Dictionary Third Edition,
page 1586.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
RELIEF SOUGHT
I do initiate this action “requiring the person
against whom it is brought to show cause why the party bringing it
should not have advantage of such record, or (in the case of a scire
facias to repeal letters patent) why the record should not be
annulled and vacated” Black's law Dictionary Third Edition,
page 1586.
I do demand that my right to be a Citizen of the State
of Louisiana be restored with all of the rights pertaining thereto.
I do demand that the full Sovereignty of the State of
Louisiana be restored, with all of my rights pertaining thereto.
I do demand that when the right to be a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana is restored to the Plaintiff, an order issue from
this Court to require the State of Louisiana to answer the complaint
herein known as exhibit A, or summary judgment on that complaint
issue as the State of Louisiana has openly confessed the charges.
I do demand summary judgment, should evidence warrant,
in favor of the Plaintiff or, absent that, a trial by a petite jury
of my peers empowered to try the law as well as the facts is Demanded
if cause can be shown why all alienations of land and Sovereignty of
the State of Louisiana should not be repealed and the record annulled
and vacated summarily.
SUPREME
COURT REFERENCE CLARIFICATION
Any
reference to the Supreme Court of the United States or the United
States Supreme Court, or Supreme Court of the States United or any
other variation thereof is meant to be construed as referencing the
same Supreme Court referenced in Article III of the Constitution of
the United States created by the States United. Who knows, Congress
may have made another by a deceptively different name, not unlike
State (one of the States United) and state (the territorial
government of a citizen of the United States).
CERTIFICATE
I do
hereby certify that the above complaints. briefs in support of the
complaints and all exhibits are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I do also hereby certify that I have complied
with all rules of the United States Supreme Court to the best of my
ability and knowledge as much as is possible from this prison. I do
further and again certify that all documents sent to the United
States Supreme Court, in this matter, have been sent to the Office of
the Governor of the State of Louisiana and the Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Louisiana as specified in the certificate of
service for the motion for leave to file the attached Complaint and
supporting documents in Forma Pauperis.
I do
hereby certify that all of the above is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief this 21st day of September,
2007
Michael E. DiRosa, In proper person
c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX - XXXX
TOP
|
