THE ONE SUPREME COURT IN
WHICH THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE VESTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
(The above title is used
in contradistinction to the Supreme Court of the United States the
inferior court created by the treasonous congress in the judiciary
act of 1891.)
DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL
PROCESS
Comes now into
Court Michael E. DiRosa, a Sovereign, endowed by his Creator with
unalienable rights, a self-evident truth as declared in the
Declaration of Independence, to demand Judicial Process from the one
supreme Court in which the judicial Power of the United States is
vested.
JUDICIAL
PROCESS. "Judicial process" is but the command of the sovereign
by whose authority the tribunal out of which it issues was
established, commanding the person or officers to whom it is
directed, or who is authorized to execute it, to do certain acts
therein specified, and it is, therefore, appropriate that such
process shall run in the name of the Government. But whether
appropriate or necessary of not, the Constitution requires it, and
what that instrument requires should be done without hesitation or
inquiry into the question whether, abstractly considered, the thing
required is essential or not. 160 Ky. 754, 170 S.W. 171. Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated Vol II. Pg 619
They
are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and
every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this
sovereignty." Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393
As an ambassador of
the enslaved Sovereign, Micheal E. DiRosa and his government, the
State of Louisiana, he represents and by the court of the King
(Fourm regium) the authority out of which it issues commands the
officers of the one supreme Court in which the judicial power of the
United States shall be vested by Article III of the Constitution to
take the following appropriate actions without hesitation because the
Constitution requires it.
That the
overthrow of the Congress of the United States and the resulting
invasion of the State of Louisiana be declared null and void. The
Constitution requires it.
That the
fourteenth amendment and all actions perpetrated by this illegal
band of treasonous conspirators pretending to be the Congress of the
United States be declared null and void and my right to be Sovereign
from birth be reinstated thus freeing me from the bonds of slavery
as a subject of these treasonous conspirators. The Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution requires it.
That the
occupational government that still exists in the State of Louisiana
be removed form their pretend offices and all actions perpetrated by
this illegal occupational government be declared null and void. The
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution requires it.
JURISDICTION
Original
jurisdiction rests in this Honorable Court by virtue of Article III
of the Constitution of the United States as the State of Louisiana is
a party to this action in that it is the State of Louisiana, the
lawful government of this Sovereign, that has been invaded and
overthrown in direct violation of Article IV Section 4 of the
Constitution. Furthermore, as an ambassador of the enslaved
Sovereign, Michael E. DiRosa and his government, this Court is the
only Court with authority to execute this Demand of this ambassador
and Sovereign.
"AMBASSADOR.
In international law. A public officer, clothed with high
diplomatic powers, commissioned by a sovereign prince or state to
transact the international business of his government at the court of
the country to which he is sent."
"Ambassador
is a person sent by one sovereign to another, with authority, by
letters of credence, to treat on affairs of State. Jacob."
Black's Law Dictionary Pg. 101
"AMBASSADOR.
In international law. A public minister sent abroad by some
sovereign state or prince, with a legal commission and authority to
transact business on behalf of his country with the government to
which he is sent."
"An
ambassador is a minister of the highest rank." Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated Vol I. Pg. 68
TRIBUNAL.
The seat of a judge; the place where he administers justice. The
whole body of judges who compose a jurisdiction. The jurisdiction
which the judges exercise.
The
term is latin, and derives its origin form the elevated seat where
the tribunes administered justice.
Any
court, forum, or judicial body. Anderson's l. Dict. Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated Vol II Pg. 1190
TRIBUNAL.
The seat of a judge; the place where he administers justice. The
whole body of judges who compose a jurisdiction; a judicial court;
the jurisdiction which the judges exercise. See Foster v. Worcester,
16 Pick. (Mass.) 81. Black's Law Dictionary Third Edition Pg 1756
The tribunal of the
Sovereign, Michael E. DiRosa has declared, on positive and
irrefutable proof,
that the overthrow of Congress is illegal and unconstitutional. The
tribunal of the Sovereign, Michael E. DiRosa, has declared, on
positive and
irrefutable proof,
that the invasion and overthrow of this Ambassador and Sovereign's
legal government, the State of Louisiana, is also illegal and
unconstitutional being in direct violation of Article IV section 4 of
the Constitution. This is not only historical fact, it is confessed
in "The Dubious Origins of the Fourteenth Amendmen" Tulane
Law Review Vol. 28, 1953, among others. This article is a revision
and amplification of the material contained in an address delivered
by the author at a meeting of the New Orleans Bar Association on
September 29, 1953. and published in Louisiana Bar Association
Journal, vol. 1, no 2. The contents of "The Dubious Origins of
the Fourteenth Amendment" Tulane Law Review Vol. 28, 1953 and
the legal arguments contained within "The Dubious Origins of
the Fourteenth Amendment are well thought out and on point and are
adopted by this Ambassador and Sovereign by reference as if
completely contained herein and are attached hereto.
How can it be
claimed that the Sovereign's legitimate government, the State of
Louisiana needed to be "reconstructed" when, after the Civil War,
it received Presidential recognition and had played an active part in
the then recent ratification and adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment
abolishing slavery? Nor could it be claimed that one of these
"reconstructed" States were instrumental in the ratification of
the Fourteenth Amendment if they were in need of "reconstruction".
Nor could it be claimed that they were only reconstructing the
"rebel States" when Tennessee was excluded from invasion. There
can be no doubt that "reconstruction" was just a convenient
pretense of these treasonous conspirators to violate Article IV
Section 4 of the Constitution.
RECONSTRUCTION.
"Reconstruction" presupposes the nonexistence of the thing to be
reconstructed as an entity; that the thing before existing has lost
its entity; and "reconstruction" is defined as follows: To
construct again; to rebuild; to restore again as an entity the thing
which was lost or destroyed. Black's Law Dictionary Third Edition
Pg 1756
Furthermore, it can
not be claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment did not directly violate
the Thirteenth Amendment by creating subjects of the United States.
Nor, can it be claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment did not violate
the both the self-evident truth that all men are created equal,
endowed by their creator with unalienable Rights upon which this more
perfect union was created as well as the Thirteenth Amendment
abolishing slavery.
"While
the thirteenth article of amendment was intended primarily to abolish
African slavery, it equally forbids Mexican peonage or the Chinese
coolie trade when they amount to slavery or involuntary servitude,
and the use of the word "servitude" is intended to prohibit
all forms of involuntary slavery of whatever class or name."
Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36
It can not be
claimed that the Thirteenth Amendment does not also forbid villenage.
VILLENAGE.
A servile kind of tenure belonging to lands or tenements, whereby
the tenant was bound to do all such services as the lord commanded,
or were fit for a villein to do. Cowell. Black's Law Dictionary
Third Edition Pg 1818
By what claim can
these treasonous conspirators assert that the lawful government of
the State of Louisiana needed to be reconstructed or that they had
the right to reconstruct it? President Johnson even vetoed the
Reconstruction Act stressing its harsh injustices and its many
aspects of obvious unconstitutionality and denounced the
Reconstruction Act as "a bill of attainder against nine million
people at once."
Not only was the
Reconstruction Act a bill of attainder against nine million people at
once, the resulting Fourteenth Amendment, forced upon this country at
the point of a bayonet, was a bill of attainder upon every Sovereign
born in the conquered State of Louisiana from then to this day.
Every Sovereign born in the conquered State of Louisiana was, in
effect, shanghaied and put in service of the occupational government
of the entity pretending to be the lawful government of the State of
Louisiana under the pretense of available Sovereignty and unalienable
rights.
SHANGHAI.
under federal law, procuring or inducing, of attempting to do so, by
force, or threats, or by representations which one knows or believes
to be untrue, or while the person is intoxicated or under the
influence of any drug, to go on board of any vessel, or agree to do
so, to preform service or labor thereon, such vessel being engages in
interstate or foreign commerce, on the high seas or nay navigable
water of the United States, of knowingly to detain on board such
vessel such persons, so procured or induced, or knowingly aiding or
abetting such things, is an offense. Black's Law Dictionary Third
Edition Pg 1617
There can be no
doubt that the occupational government of the conquered State of
Louisiana still exist. It is confessed in the pretend constitution
of the State of Louisiana of the occupational government which
forbids any Citizen of the State of Louisiana from holding any
statewide elective office. This is confessed in Article IV Section 2
of the occupational government pretending to be the valid Louisiana
State Constitution.
"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
Furthermore, if the
claim that Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution could be
circumvented by the claim that these "rebel States" were in need
of "reconstruction" they would have had no power to ratify the
abomination called the Fourteenth Amendment.
There can be no
doubt that Michael E. DiRosa, endowed by his creator with unalienable
rights, was, for however brief a time, a Sovereign as is
self-evident and was shanghaied by these treasonous conspirators
into service as a subject of the United States.
He
could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave. Scott v.
Sandford 60 U.S. 393
Nor can there be
any doubt that the entity pretending to be the lawful State of
Louisiana is nothing but the occupational government of the
treasonous invaders who overthrew the lawful Congress of the United
States and conquered the State of Louisiana and supplanted it with
the occupational government of the State of Louisiana. It is not
only historical fact, it is confessed by the traitors themselves.
Considering the
forgoing historical facts and positive and irrefutable proof it is
hereby demanded by this ambassador and Sovereign that this Demand for
judicial process be honored and the appropriate and aforementioned
actions be taken without hesitation because the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution requires it.
I, Michael E.
DiRosa, Ambassador and Sovereign do hereby declare that the above is
the true and authorized demand of the Sovereign and the State he
represents. This 8th day of September, 2009
Michael E. DiRosa
Ambassador and Sovereign unlawfully and
unconstitutionally imprisoned.
C/O 318 Lakeshore Pkwy.
New Orleans, Louisiana
XXX - XXX - XXXX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael E.
DiRosa, Ambassador and Sovereign do hereby declare that the above has
been served upon the one supreme Court in which the judicial Power of
the United States shall be vested by the Constitution of the United
States by entrusting this document into the hands of the United
States Postal Authority for delivery.
I, Michael E.
DiRosa, Ambassador and Sovereign do hereby further declare that this
document would have been hand delivered were it not for the fact that
this Ambassador and Sovereign is currently illegally and
unconstitutionally held prisoner by the occupational government
pretending to be the lawful and Constitutional government of the
State of Louisiana.
This 8th
day of September, 2009
Michael E. DiRosa
Ambassador and Sovereign
TOP
|
