The Overthrow of the U.S.A. The Conspiracy Proof.

1. U.S. Supreme Court told me

2. Background

3. The dred scott story

4. The fall of the kings

5. The story of Hans

6. The dubious origins of 14

6 (a) Another Confession. The threat of the 14th amendment.

7. The short story

8. My vehicle my rules

9. Where's the king

10. Through the courts

11. Prohibition

12. Men and Women

13. Religion

The State Owns Your Car

A traffic ticket is an action by the owner of the vehicle against you for misusing their property ( a tort). It is a privilege to use the owner's vehicle and it is a privilege that made them the owner.

TWO Supreme Courts

The Supreme Court of the United States is the hightest inferior court that congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

SOVEREIGNTY

The TRUE AMERICAN TREASURE.

Shanghaied in America

The lure is Freedom.

What can I do?

Quietly - I have enough trouble.

Freemasons

Noble order or deluded dupes?

How to Stop Spam

A new approach.

[print friendly page?]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****************

No. 2007 – KH - 0131

*****************

STATE OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL E. DI ROSA

OBJECTION TO THE RETURN OF LEGALLY FILED DOCUMENTS

AND ADJUDGEMENTS BY THE CENTRAL STAFF OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

AND

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

AND

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

****************************

A STAY ORDER IS NECESSARY IN THIS MATTER

RESTRIANING THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

****************************

Comes now into Court Michael E. DiRosa, a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, for the purpose of objecting to the return of legally filed documents and adjudgements by the central staff of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. dated March 19, 2007 and mailed on March 20, 2007 and received by me on the 22^nd day of March, 2007 in the evening. The reason stated on the cover letter is “ Your writ application was not transferred to the United States Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, but to the State Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Gretna. You must exhaust your lower court remedies before coming to this Court. We are returning your motion.”

I do object for the following reasons .

In the first place, I must apologize. I had to deduce that the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal were both federal jurisdictions. To date I can not get anyone to tell me what court and jurisdiction I am in, and by what right do they force me here? In my previous research, which I can only recall since that research is beyond the bounds of my prison, I have found only two instances where a State may be party to an action. One is in Article III, section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution which claims that the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The other one is US Code Title 28 § 1251 (3) “All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.” Since it is obvious that I was not in the United States Supreme Court, then I must have been in a federal court, and something is claiming that I am a Citizen of another State or an alien. Hence, if I am in a federal admiralty jurisdiction in First Parish Court, the court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit must also be a federal court and hence the United States Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana. That brings us back to the issue properly before the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, and not before the central staff of the court. Who is this entity calling itself the State of Louisiana and on what jurisdictional grounds does it force me, at the literal gun barrel of government, into court, and on what cause of action? If the central staff can tell me of another jurisdictional ground upon which a State may appear in its own name in an action, I do DEMAND to be informed. I do also, again, DEMAND to be informed as to just what jurisdiction is the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson and the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana.

As to the adjudgement of the central staff that states: “You must exhaust your lower court remedies before coming to this Court.” The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did, on its own motion, seek a ruling from the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit. The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit did issue a ruling on the request of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Coincidentally, they carefully reviewed the case and summarily ruled against me in the same amount of time that it took me to object to the transfer of jurisdiction to an incompetent court (the filing the central staff has returned .)

Is it the adjudgement of the central staff that I engage in the most vain and useless act of asking an incompetent court to again rule on issues, by its own admission and the Louisiana State Constitution Article V section 5(D)(1), outside of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana? By what right and authority does the central staff make such an adjudgement? Is it the unsolicited legal opinion of the central staff that the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana is not a federal jurisdiction?

“-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;”

United States Constitution, Article III Section 2

“ADMIRALTY In American Law

A tribunal exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, Injuries, or offenses.” Black's Law Dictionary, third edition, Pg. 60

“ADMIRALTY In American Law

... in other admiralty cases appeals will be from Circuit and District Courts to the Circuit Courts of Appeals, the decision of the latter courts being final.”, Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated Pg. 49

The issue is, does the State have a valid claim in ANY court. In this State only the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana can make that determination.

The central issue in this case is who owns the vehicle. The State's claim of ownership is by virtue of the unconstitutional Louisiana State Constitution Article VII section 5 which creates an illegal admiralty lien on my vehicle. Is it the adugement of the central staff that the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana can rule on the constitutionality of an article of the Louisiana State Constitution?

The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana could have, in its careful inspection of the record and rush to summary judgment, requested by the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, certified a question to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. It was in their appellate jurisdiction to inquire into a question of law? Is Article VII section 5 of Louisiana State Constitution valid and lawful. If Article VII § 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is unconstitutional and invalid from its inception, as this State Citizen has claimed, than the State of Louisiana has no cause of action, and is not a party to ANY suit.

“Article V § 11. Courts of Appeal; Certification

Section 11. A court of appeal may certify any question of law before it to the supreme court, and the supreme court then may give its binding instruction or decide the case upon the whole record. “ Louisiana State Constitution. Article V section 11

This is how the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana could have brought this question of law to the court of competent jurisdiction, The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.

The other method for challenging the Constitution of the State of Louisiana is by Article V section 5(D)(1) which states:

“(D) Appellate Jurisdiction. In addition to other appeals provided by this constitution, a case shall be appealable to the supreme court if (1) a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional...”

It is this State Citizen that has declared Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution as unconstitutional. Since the State Constitution is silent upon whose declaration is needed. The Declaration of this State Citizen and Defendant must suffice. In fact, who better to have a direct challenge than a Citizens of the State?

Could the law be any clearer? “...the supreme court then may give its binding instruction or decide the case upon the whole record. “ Louisiana State Constitution. Article V section 11 (supra.) The only difference here is who called the issue to the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. There can be no doubt that the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana has the power to “decide the case upon the whole record. “

If this were not jurisdiction enough, jurisdiction rests in the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana under Louisiana State Constitution Article V, Section 5, (A), (B), and (F).

The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana is incompetent to determine if the State of Louisiana has a cause of action. Is there a valid admiralty lien at all? Is Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution unconstitutional? I did not appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana by accident. I did appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana according to law.

Now, eight days after the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana has ruled, at the request of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, the central staff does return my legally filed documents objecting to the transfer of jurisdiction to an incompetent court telling me “ Your writ application was not transferred to the United States Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, but to the State Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in Gretna. You must exhaust your lower court remedies before coming to this Court. We are returning your motion.” The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, by its own motion, did exhaust the lower court remedy. Surely, when the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana does ask the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana for an opinion one can not suppose that the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana did not send the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana a copy of the opinion? They ruled and sent one to me on the 12^th day of March, 2007. The very same day that I sent to you my objection to the transfer of jurisdiction to an incompetent court that you have returned to me on the 20^th day of March, 2007. Could it be that the legal education system has achieved the same high standards that the public schools enjoy? Or, could it be that the central staff is trying to cunningly coerce this State Citizen into a federal jurisdiction? By what right and / or authority did the central staff make these adjudgements that I do so strenuously object to?

Could this State Citizen have inadvertently stumbled into a cabal of sworn associates attempting to perpetuate an injustice, under color of law, from which these sworn associates do profit? Could the central staff be trying to tamper with the records of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana to remove any record of my objection to the transfer of jurisdiction, properly filed? How else could one explain the adjudgements of the central staff and the fact that judges, in one breath, ask: “Do you understand the charges against you?” and in the next breath flatly refuse to disclose in what court we stand and on what jurisdictional grounds I have been forced here, at gun point, and on what cause of action, and who and where is the plaintiff? Has no doctor of law and officer of the court, sworn to uphold the Constitution, noticed that the right to travel seems to be missing?

There can be no doubt that I have a right to travel as the allodial owner of the vehicle. I have not broken any of my rules and I have not prohibited my use of the vehicle. Nor can it be denied that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution did intentionally seek to alienate me from my right to travel as La R.S. 32:25 does profess.

“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

Article VII, Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is unconstitutional. I am the allodial owner of the vehicle, traveling as a matter of right. No State has ever had a valid lien on my vehicle, admiralty or otherwise. The State of Louisiana has never been a party to these actions for lack of standing and lack of a cause of action. The corporation called the Department of Public Safety and Corrections has been enforcing, what it knows to be, an invalid lien, for profit.

There can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is unconstitutional. This section of the Constitution does impose an unconstitutional lien on every vehicle by which I may exercise my right to travel (including bicycle and ridden animal), and thereby, by design and implementation, does strip this Citizen of my right to travel and virtually every other right and does reduce him to either a slave and bond servant of the State, the corporation known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the overseer, and the Insurance industry or a prisoner in a walking distance prison.

There can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is unconstitutional. It does obviously emit a bill of credit prohibited by Article 1 section 10 of the United States Constitution.

“-- Bill of credit. In constitutional law. A Bill or promissory note issued by the government of a state or nation, upon its faith and credit, designed to circulate in the community as money, and redeemable at a future date.” Black's Law Dictionary, third edition pg 221.

There can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is unconstitutional. It does create a feudal lord of travel, the body corporate known as Department of Public Safety and Corrections (the overseer of the State's plantation.) This overseer of the State's property has demanded that Citizens bind themselves to service for a term of years to the overseer of the State's property and further bind themselves to service for a term of years to any corporation in the insurance industry or be imprisoned in a prison, without charge nor trial, whose bounding wall is the distance the Citizen can walk in a day, or half that distance if a habitat is maintained. Should this walking distance prisoner desire to travel further than the bounds of the prison, the Citizen must be escorted by a slave / bond servant of the State of Louisiana, body corporate known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, overseer of the State's property and people, and any corporation in the insurance industry. I will now plagiarize the United States Declaration of Independence.

The history of the present Feudal Lord of Travel, the corporation known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, overseer of the State's property, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the Citizens. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world.

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

“For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:”

“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken captive on the high Seas...”

“In every stage of these Supressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury, A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

There can be no doubt that the central staff, without authority nor right, did illegally adjudge that the properly filed document entitled “OBJECTION TO THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FORM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT” should not be included in the official record of Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana case, docket number 2007-KH-0131.

This State Citizen does DEMAND that this properly filed document entitled “OBJECTION TO THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FORM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT” be reintroduced into the record bearing the date of the United States Postal Authority postmark of March 12, 2007, the very day that the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana did issue its opinion on the case properly before the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, docket number 2007-KH-0131, at the request of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.

This Citizen of the State does, again, move the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana to do its duty and obligation and render summary judgment, absent any objection, declaring that Article VII, Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License Tax” be declared null and void from its inception.

This Citizen of the State does, again, move the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana to order the body corporate known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to return my vehicle, at their expense, illegally stolen from me, and also return, at their expense, the personal property contained in my vehicle until such time as their ludicrous claim of ownership can be established and due process had.

This Citizen of the State does remind this Court and all parties notified that this Citizen is still being held, illegally and under threat of illegal incarceration, in this prison, and has been so imprisoned since the 21^st day of December, 2006. My emergency evacuation vehicle has been stolen and is currently being held for ransom contrary to the rules of the overseer of the State's property and people, by the overseer of the State's property and people, that body corporate known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Even public transit service has not been restored to this area since the flood. Should a disaster befall this area that would require evacuation of the area am I to be left to die in the city. How many of the people in the Superdome, Convention Center, and private residences caught in the hurricane and government induced flood were also left to die by the State and its overseer of the State's people and property, the body corporate known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

As this “emergency appeal” does drag on I do remind everyone notified that the tyrant is stealing vehicles daily adding to the list of Citizens left to die in a disaster. Every day the tyrant is, without cause of action, stealing life, liberty and property from Citizens. Even the children, which the State does seem to hold in such high esteem that they have outlawed smoking in bars to save them from second hand smoke, are to be abandoned to die in a disaster because the overseer of the State's property and people has imposed such burdens and costs that make owning an emergency evacuation vehicle impossible for their parents, assuming that the body corporate known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections has not outright stolen their emergency evacuation vehicle.

This State Citizen does also remind all persons notified that this State Citizen did not create this unpleasantness. He is just the first to fully decipher the fraud perpetrated against him and his fellow citizens, and refused to tolerate it.

Considering the forgoing I am returning the legally filed objection and motion entitled “OBJECTION TO THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FORM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT” to be reintroduced into the record bearing the date of the United States Postal Authority postmark of March 12, 2007, the very day that the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana did issue its opinion on the case properly before the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, docket number 2007-KH-0131.

I do hereby swear that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

_________________________________

Michael E. DiRosa

C/O 318 Lakeshore Pkwy.

New Orleans, Louisiana 70124

XXX – XXX – XXXX

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the legally filed objection and motion entitled “OBJECTION TO THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FORM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT” be reintroduced into the record bearing the date of the United States Postal Authority postmark of March 12, 2007, the very day that the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana did issue its opinion on the case properly before the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, docket number 2007-KH-0131, at the request of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.