SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF LOUISIANA
*****************
No. 2007 - KH - 866
*****************
MICHAEL
E. DI ROSA
VS
DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETYAND CORRECTIONS
“a body corporate with the power to sue and be sued “(La R.S Chapter 9 §401 A)
Case Number F1681551
on the Docket of
First Parish Court Parish
of Jefferson
State of Louisiana
Joseph
Responti presiding
OBJECTION TO ERRORS ON
THE FACE OF THE RECORD
Comes
now into court Michael E. DiRosa, a Citizen of the State of Louisiana
for the purpose of objecting to the inaccuracy of the information
contained in the letter sent to me by John Tarlton Olivier, Clerk of
Court, noticing me of the docket number for my appeal sent to me on
the 27th day of April and received by me on the 28h
day of April, 2007 in the afternoon, and objecting to the inaccuracy
of the record in general, and to, again demand summary judgment.
The
grossly incorrect letter does state: “ This is to advise that
the pleadings in the above entitled matter were received an filed on
4/27/2007. The filing was post marked on 4/2/2007. The case bears
the above number on the Docket of this court”. This is indeed
straight forward and not objectionable. However the letter does at
the bottom:
create
a totally fictitious chain of appeal that simply does not exist.
notify
the wrong people of the docketing of this appeal.
improperly
and selectively join actions 2007- KH-131 and 2007-KH-866 to my
detriment
not
mention all case numbers if such actions are to be joined
Incorrectly
imply that this is not a direct challenge to Article VII, Section
5 of the Louisiana State Constitution and the lien therein
created.
Incorrectly
imply that jurisdiction exist for First Parish Court, the 24th
Judicial District Court and the Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit.
Incorrectly
imply that this State Citizen did seek and accept the jurisdiction
of the First Parish Court, the 24th Judicial District
Court, and the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit.
Perpetrate
a fraud upon this Citizen of the State of Louisiana, the Louisiana
Supreme Court.
Hinder
any appeal to a higher court.
This
Document does mention the 24th Judicial District Court
Div. “G” Number(s) F152159, F1523230, F1678532. I HAVE
NEVER BEEN IN THE 24th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DIV.”G”.
I did not seek nor accept their jurisdiction in any of these
matters. In point of fact, the 24th Judicial District
Court Div. “G” is without jurisdiction as it can not
determine who owns the vehicle in question.
Only the
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana can rule on the validity of
the admiralty lien created by Article VII, Section 5 of the Louisiana
State Constitution.
This
Document does mention the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s)
07-KH-154. There is such a case number, however, the Supreme Court
of the State of Louisiana did seek, on their own motion, the opinion
of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit. The Louisiana Supreme Court
did mistakenly attempt to transfer jurisdiction of 2007-KH-131
properly on their docket to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit. This
State Citizen did file an objection to the transfer of jurisdiction
to an incompetent court entitled OBJECTION TO THE TRANSFER OF
JURISDICTION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT. Mailed March 12, 2007. Despite repeated attempts, by
phone and in person, by this Citizen, to find out from any Clerk of
Court why this document was not part of the record in case numbered
2007-KH-131, I can get no answer.
Furthermore,
when the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana did rule,
at the request of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, I did,
again, object to the ruling. I did file an objection entitled
OBJECTION TO THE RULING ENTITLED “APPLICATION FOR WRITS NO.
'07-KH-154 COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA.”
AND MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Mailed March 15, 2007. In this objection I did, again, give the
reasons why the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana
had no jurisdiction and could not rule. I did also point out that
the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana could not
effect a remedy, facts that their own ruling proved. Yet again,
despite repeated attempts, by phone and in person, by this Citizen,
to find out from any Clerk of Court why this document was not part of
the record in case numbered 2007-KH-131, I can get no answer.
In fact,
the central staff of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did
return my objection to the transfer of jurisdiction from the Supreme
Court of the State of Louisiana to the United States Court of
Appeal, Fifth Circuit and motion for summary judgment having
illegally adjudged it incorrect. I did file an OBJECTION TO THE
RETURN OF LEGALLY FILED DOCUMENTS AND ADJUDGMENTS BY THE CENTRAL
STAFF OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Mailed March 26, 2007. Yet
again, despite repeated attempts, by phone and in person, by this
State Citizen, to find out from any Clerk of Court why this document
was not part of the record in case numbered 2007-KH-131, I can get no
answer.
In all
three legally filed objections I did point out the reasons why I did
appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana as the only
court, in this State, competent to hear this case. In all three
objections I did move for summary judgment, absent objection. To
date there has been no objection to summary judgment.
This
State Citizen did file an ORIGINAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF LOUISIANA ARTICLE VII SECTION 5 OF THE
LOUISIANA STATE CONSTITUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MICHAEL E. DI ROSA
RELATOR AND APPELLANT AND NOTICE OF FAILURE OF THE COURT. Mailed
April 2, 2007. Yet again, despite repeated attempts, by phone and in
person, by this Citizen, to find out from any Clerk of Court why this
document was not part of the record in case numbered 2007-KH-131, I
can get no answer.
This
State Citizen did file a DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND WRIT OF
MANDAMUS Mailed April 2, 2007. Yet again, despite repeated attempts,
by phone and in person, by this Citizen to find out from any Clerk of
Court why this document was not part of the record in case numbered
2007-KH-131, I can get no answer.
The
cases appealed from, if cases 2007-KH-131 and 2007-KH-866 are to be
conjoined should read F1525159, F1523230, F1678532 (from 2007-KH-131)
and F1681551 (from 2007-KH-866). Curiously, case numbered F1681551
has not been included in the list of pending actions illegally
instituted by complaint of The Department of Public Safety and
Corrections and its agents. Nor is Joseph Responti, the judge in
case numbered F1681551 notified of this selective conjoining. This
State Citizen did challenge the jurisdiction of First Parish Court,
the cause of action of the Plaintiff, and the standing of the
Plaintiff in all cases. In all cases this Citizen of the State did
appeal directly from First Parish Court to the Supreme Court of the
State of Louisiana under Article V section 5(D)(1) of the Louisiana
State Constitution
“(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 intentionally silent upon whose declaration is needed. The
Declaration of this State Citizen and Defendant must suffice. In
fact, who better to challenge a section of the constitution than a
State Citizen defending his rights. Let
me remind you of the admonition of the Legislature which states:
Ҥ4. Unambiguous wording not to be disregarded
When the wording of a Section is clear and free of
ambiguity, the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the
pretext of pursuing its spirit.” La R.S. 1:4
There is
no other Court in the State of Louisiana empowered to hear this
challenge to the Louisiana State Constitution. Let me remind you of
the Louisiana Supreme Court's own website FAQ which states:
“The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction in cases in which
a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional and in capital
cases where the death penalty has been imposed. These cases originate
at the trial court level, but bypass review by the intermediate
courts of appeal in order to be heard directly by the supreme court.”
“As stated earlier, the Louisiana Supreme Court must hear all
cases involving disciplinary actions against lawyers and judges, all
cases in which a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional,
and all capital cases where the death penalty has been imposed.”
The
argument is, as it always has been, a property dispute. The
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, as overseer of the
State's property and alias of the State of Louisiana, has been
enforcing an invalid admiralty lien instituted by the
unconstitutional Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution. Since it is an admiralty lien, Article III, Section 2,
paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution must apply. It does
declare that federal jurisdiction does apply “to all Cases of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction”. Hence, First Parish
Court of the Parish of Jefferson must be an federal admiralty court.
If it is not, then what are what are we doing in a State court? A
State court does not have jurisdiction over an admiralty case. It
must be remembered that both judges of First Parish Court did
absolutely refuse to tell me into what jurisdiction I had been
dragged at the literal gun barrel of government.
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
calling itself the State of Louisiana, or its alias, the Department
of Public Safety and Corrections, is claiming that I am a Citizen of
another State or an alien. Since it is an uncontested fact that I am
a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, a federal court has no
jurisdiction, and the plaintiff has no standing. Hence, if I am in
a federal admiralty jurisdiction in First Parish Court, the 24th
Judicial District Court must also be a federal admiralty court and
the court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit must also be a federal admiralty
court. How could this Citizen of the State of Louisiana convince a
federal court that the State of Louisiana and the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, the overseer of the State's
plantation, is a citizen of another State or an alien? Should this
matter be taken to the only other court competent to hear this issue,
it would appear that this State Citizen is a federal citizen seeking
the jurisdiction of a federal admiralty court as a citizen of another
State or an alien. This can not be allowed to stand as it is
blatantly false.
Again, I
am a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. I have never sought nor
accepted the jurisdiction of the 24th Judicial District
Court nor the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana.
Neither court has jurisdiction to determine if there is a valid lien
to be enforced. I have, at every opportunity, challenged the
jurisdiction of the First Parish Court, a challenge that has, to this
day remained uncontested. I have, at every opportunity, challenged
the standing and cause of action of the Department of Public Safety
and Corrections and the State of Louisiana, a challenge that has, to
this day remained uncontested. The State of Louisiana has never been
a party to these actions. The Department of Public Safety and
Corrections has been illegally instituted and has been enforcing an
invalid lien.
Now let
us look at who the Clerk of Court did deem fit to notify of the
docketing of this action. The Clerk did notify Paul D. Connick Jr.
District Attorney for the 24th Judicial District Court.
Again, I have never appeared, either in writing or in person in the
24th Judicial District Court Div.”G”. It is
an incompetent court. It can not adjudge whether Article VII Section
5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is valid. In this State, only
the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana is competent to hear such
a challenge. Until such determination is made, the State of
Louisiana, or its alias, the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, has no cause of action in ANY court. Also, if it is a
federal admiralty court this Citizen of the State of Louisiana has no
standing, the State of Louisiana has no standing, the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections has no standing. If it is a State
jurisdiction it has no jurisdiction.
The
Clerk of Court did notify Leonard Louis Levinson the judge who did
preside as judge and plaintiff in cases F1525159, F1523230, F1678532
in the First Parish Court. Yet, Joseph Responti, the judge who did
preside as judge and plaintiff in case F1681551 in the First Parish
Court has not been notified. Both judges did summarily rule, absent
any showing from an absent plaintiff, that First Parish Court did
have jurisdiction, a valid cause of action, and standing. In fact it
was Joseph Responti who did stay cases F1525159, F1523230, F1678532
until such time as the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did
rule on the validity of the Plaintiff's cause of action and proceed
with a new arraignment in case F1681551 on the same charges, within
the same hour. This matter was more fully detailed in the OBJECTION
TO THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF LOUISIANA TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT AND
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Mailed March 12, 2007. Which, again,
is mysteriously absent from the record of case numbered 2007-KH-131
on the Docket of the Louisiana Supreme Court. This matter was also
more fully detailed in the ORIGINAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF LOUISIANA ARTICLE VII SECTION 5 OF THE
LOUISIANA STATE CONSTITUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MICHAEL E. DI ROSA
RELATOR AND APPELLANT AND NOTICE OF FAILURE OF THE COURT. Mailed
April 2, 2007. Which, again, is mysteriously absent from the record
of case numbered 2007-KH-131 on the Docket of the Louisiana Supreme
Court. It is also mentioned in the case entitled Michael E. DiRosa
vs. Department of Public Safety and Corrections given docket number
2007-KH-866 in the document entitled EMERGENCY APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT STATE OF LOUISIANA AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
The
Clerk of Court did notify Terry Michael Boudreaux, Esq. who proudly
proclaims his title of nobility. I have no idea of who he is. An
Internet search did claim that he is a Prosecutor who handles appeals
for the Jefferson Parish District Attorney's office. Is the
Jefferson Parish District Attorney's Office going to prove the
validity of the lien created by Article VII, Section 5 of the
Louisiana State Constitution?
The
Clerk of Court did notify Robert A. Pitre. I have no idea of who he
is. An Internet search did claim that he is a judge of the 24th
Judicial District Court Div. “G”. Again, I have never
appeared in writing or in person in the 24th Judicial
District Court Div. “G”.
The
Clerk of Court did notify Peter Fitzgerald, Clerk. An Internet
search did claim that he is the Clerk of Court for the Court of
Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana. Again, I have never sought
nor accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit,
State of Louisiana. The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did,
on its own motion, seek an opinion of the Court of Appeal, Fifth
Circuit, State of Louisiana. I did object in the filed document
entitled OBJECTION TO THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FROM THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Mailed March
12, 2007. I did also object to the ruling of the Court of Appeal,
Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana in the filed document entitled
OBJECTION TO THE RULING ENTITLED “APPLICATION FOR WRITS NO.
'07-KH-154 COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA.”
AND MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Mailed March 15, 2007. Both of these documents have never been
entered in the record of case 2007-KH-131 on the docket of the
Louisiana Supreme Court. I can not, either in person or by phone,
find any clerk that will tell me the reason why.
Now let
us look at the people he did not notify. It must be remembered that
I have, at every opportunity, maintained that I am a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana, a fact that, to this day, has remained
uncontested. I do claim to be the allodial owner of the vehicle
twice illegally seized and held for ransom by the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections., a fact that, to this day, has
remained uncontested. The overseer of the State's plantation, the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections does claim, it is assumed
for they have never shown nor proved a cause of action, that it is
enforcing an admiralty lien on my vehicle created by Louisiana State
Constitution Article VII Section 5. I do claim that the admiralty
lien on my vehicle is unconstitutional, and invalid. This is simply
a property dispute. Before the overseer of the State's plantation
can drag me into any court, state or federal, the validity of the
lien must be determined. In order to determine if the lien is valid
there must be a ruling on the central issue of this matter. Is
Louisiana State Constitution Article VII Section 5 constitutional?
Can the State Constitution deprive a State Citizen of his right to
own a motor vehicle (including bicycle and ridden animal), deprive
him of his right to travel, force him into a choice between slave and
bond servant or prisoner in a prison slightly better than house
arrest and deprive a State Citizen of his right to own an emergency
evacuation vehicle by bill of cedit. This must be decided before the
overseer of the State's plantation can drag me into any court. There
is only one court in this State empowered to make such a
determination, the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. This is
why I did appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
directly from First Parish Court. Now let us look at who the Clerk
of Court did not notify.
The
Clerk of Court did not notify Richard L. Stalder Secretary of the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections. If I am challenging the
lien that they are enforcing, and their name appears in the heading
“Di Rosa, Michael E. vs. Public Safety and Corrections Dept.
of” would it seem reasonable to have notified them? My
appeals, motions and objections do. Yet, he has not been notified.
The
Clerk of Court did not notify Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Governor of
the State of Louisiana and the person that did appoint Richard L.
Stalder Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
Since there is a challenge to the Louisiana State Constitution, the
admiralty lien the State illegally claims, and the legality of the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections might it not have been
reasonable to have notified her? My appeals, motions and objections
do. Yet, she has not been notified.
The
Clerk of Court did not notify Charles C. Foti, Jr.
Attorney General of the State of Louisiana. Since there is a
challenge to the Louisiana State Constitution, the admiralty lien the
State illegally claims, and the legality of the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections might it not have been reasonable to have
notified him? My appeals, motions and objections do. Yet, he has
not been notified.
In
point of fact, the only true participants in this action are the
Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections as
enforcer of the invalid lien and named defendant, the Governor of the
State of Louisiana if she wishes to get involved and the Attorney
General of the State of Louisiana if he wishes to get involved. Yet,
these people have not been notified by the Clerk of Court. The
judges of First Parish Court and all federal officials were only
necessary to supply the damage and cause of action and give this
State Citizen standing in the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana.
Yet
now, as the record stands, it appears:
The
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did transfer jurisdiction
of case numbered 2007-KH-131on the docket of the Supreme Court of
the State of Louisiana to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit,
State of Louisiana without objection. This is FALSE.
The
Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana did, with
jurisdiction, deny writ numbered 07-KH-154 without objection.
This is FALSE.
The
Central Staff of the Supreme Court did not illegally adjudge and
return properly filed documents. This is FALSE.
This
State Citizen did appeal to the 24th Judicial District
Court Div. “G”. This is FALSE.
This
State Citizen did appeal to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit.
This is FALSE.
Joseph
Responti, judge of First Parish Court in case numbered F1681551,
did not stay three trial and proceed with a new arraignment on the
same issues within the same hour in an effort to illegally force
the jurisdiction of the First Parish Court on this State Citizen.
This is FALSE.
In
fact, as the record stands, case numbered F1681551 does not even
exist. This is FALSE.
This
State Citizen is really a citizen of another state or an alien
following the appeal process of a citizen of another State or
alien. This is FALSE.
This
State Citizen is really a citizen of another State or an alien and
has no appeal right, standing, and cause of action in the Supreme
Court of the State of Louisiana. This is FALSE.
The
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana is not a court of
competent jurisdiction. This is FALSE.
This Citizen of the State of Louisiana is a legal
slave and bond servant of the State of Louisiana, the body
corporate known as the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, and the insurance industry. This is FALSE.
Is
this an act of fraud upon this Citizen of the State of Louisiana and
the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana by the Clerk of Court or
is it simply an error made by an overworked staff? Such questions
are beyond the scope of this State Citizen at this time. I am still
convinced that honorable courts will do honorable things. However,
whether by incompetence or malicious act, the face of the record is
FALSE. How proud his parents and family must be. He did not deprive
this Citizen of the State of Louisiana of his life, liberty, fortune
and sacred honor he just made it possible for someone else to do it.
He just made it look legal. He did not keep slaves, he just tried to
make sure that they could not get away. Were this another time and
place he could claim that he did not kill the Jews, he just forced
them on the train. One must wonder what defense he will use when
standing before his creator.
All
documents mentioned in this document as having been mailed, have been
sent certified mail, return receipt requested, and all return
receipts have been received. The same is true of all parties this
Citizen of the State of Louisiana did certify as served. This State
Citizen would have filed these documents in person but due to the
rules of service in emergencies and my continued illegal confinement
in this walking distance prison this was not possible.
This
matter is so serious that I must file this paper in person. How do I
do this and still comply with the rules for emergency actions? I am
still confined to this walking distance prison as the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections is still illegally holding my vehicle,
contrary to their own rules, since December 20, 2006. I have also
been told, in no uncertain terms, that I will be, again, thrown in
the Jefferson Parish torture chamber if I am caught using a vehicle
(including bicycle or ridden animal.) I have decided that the only
way that I may comply and still file in person is to mail, certified
mail. return receipt requested, to the parties listed in the
certificate of service today this 7th day of May, 2007 and
file this document, in open court, tomorrow the 8th day of
May, 2007. If, for any reason including my possible inability to
acquire a slave / bond servant escort as my imprisonment demands, I
am unable to file this document in open court, I will file it in
person in the incompetent or malicious Clerks of Court's office.
It
is hereby DEMANDED that the record be corrected. Either cases
2007-KH–131 and 2007-KH-866 properly on the Docket of the
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana be completely conjoined or
completely separated. It is hereby DEMANDED that all filings, in
both cases, be entered into the record as of the date of mailing. It
is hereby DEMANDED that the proper parties in this action be notified
in case 2007-KH-866 properly on the Docket of the Supreme Court of
the State of Louisiana.
I
do hereby swear that the above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge this 7th day of May, 2007
_________________________________
Michael E. DiRosa
C/O
318 Lakeshore Pkwy.
New
Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX – XXXX
I do further certify that I have, either with bond
servant / slave escort or by open defiance of the tyrant and overseer
of the State's plantation and use of my self propelled motor vehicle
known as a bicycle, made my way to the United States Postal Authority
where I did place into their custody a certified letter, return
receipt requested to each of the people listed below containing this
document. I do refuse to notify the 24th Judicial
District Court and the Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit as they are not
proper parties of this challenge to the Constitution of the State of
Louisiana. They do lack jurisdiction, there is no valid cause of
action before them, and they never could effect a remedy.
Kathleen
Babineaux Blanco
P.O. Box
94004
Baton
Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Charles
C. Foti, Jr.
P.O. Box
94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Richard
L. Stalder Secretary
Department
of Public Safety and Corrections
P.O. Box
66614
Baton
Rouge, LA 70896-6614
Rebecca
M. Oliver
First
Parish Clerk of Court
924 David
Dr.
Metairie,
LA 70003
Joseph
Responti
First
Parish Clerk of Court
924 David
Dr.
Metairie,
LA 70003
Lenny
Levinson
First
Parish Clerk of Court
924 David
Dr.
Metairie, LA 70003
TOP
|
