SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
| Michael E. DiRosa, |
) Case Number |
|
) |
| Plaintiff, |
) |
|
) Objection to the return of Legally |
| V. |
) filed documents. |
|
) |
| State of Louisiana, |
) |
|
) |
| The Department of Public |
) |
| Safety and Corrections, |
) |
|
) |
| Conspirators 1-999, |
) |
|
) |
| Defendants. |
) |
|
) |
Comes
now into court Michael E. DiRosa, a free and natural born 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 object to the return of Legally
filed documents and the adjudgment of the Clerk of the United States
Supreme Court. A judicial ruling is demanded on this objection.
On the
9th day of July I did mail to the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States a “Motion for leave to file the
attached complaint and briefs in support of the complaint In Forma
Pauperis.” This Document was prepared to the best of my
ability, in haste, from this prison (see NOTICE OF ILLEGAL
IMPRISONMENT AND IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH on page 4 of the attached
complaint and briefs in support of the complaint,) to be a complaint
instituting a civil suit under the original jurisdiction of the
United States Supreme Court against the above named parties (see
JURISDICTION. on page 3 of the attached complaint and briefs in
support of the complaint.)
This
institution of a civil suit, against the State of Louisiana under
Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution, has been
returned to me, on adjudgment of the Clerk of Court of the Supreme
Court of the United States, as improper for failing to comply with
the rules of this Court. The adjudgment letter (attached) did
further explain the rules of certiorari, and did acknowledge that
this action was definitely not certiorari. By law, when the State
of Louisiana is a Defendant in a civil suit, the United States
Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. To date there have
been only two decisions in this suit; my decision to file the suit
and the clerk's decision to return the original action, legally
filed. Were I to seek favor of the Court by certiorari the only
decision I could complain of is the decision of the Clerk of Court.
I seek no favor of the Court. I file as a matter of right as the
belligerent claimant, in person.
This
being my first action as Plaintiff in a civil suit I did endeavor to
take a crash course in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in
accordance with Rule 17(1) and (2) using the scant and untrusted
resources available from my prison. There is also a preceding motion
for leave to file as required by Rule 17(3). It is entitled “Motion
for leave to file the attached complaint and briefs in support of the
complaint In Forma Pauperis.”
In Forma
Pauperis is claimed under Rule 39 (2) of the Supreme Court of the
United States. From my prison, I can not find any definitive answer
as to whether an affidavit or declaration is required. It would seem
that the word of a Honorable Citizen of the State of Louisiana would
suffice unless challenged, however, I did state and certify a
declaration of poverty. I can not earn my sustenance, nor flee for
my life, without the use of a vehicle and the State of Louisiana has
forbidden me, by law, from owning or operating any “device
by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway
or bridge.” La R.S. 32:1(92) In point of fact,
as huge as the filing fee is, in my current financial condition, it
is not the most heinous impediment. The forty copies of documents
poses more of a problem in that I can only carry little more than one
ream of paper. Forty copies would require three trips and is beyond
my available finances and endurance.
In
accordance with rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure I did
file a complaint with the court.
In
accordance with Rule 17 (3) of the Supreme Court of the United States
I did include a statement of the case and briefs in support of my
claims.
In
accordance with rule 38 (a) and (b) I have demanded a trial by a
petite jury of my peers empowered to try the law as well as the
facts.
The list
goes on and on. I did, in good faith and to the best of my ability
adhere to the rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Supreme Court of the United States. There is a Citizen of the State
of Louisiana with a valid cause of action and standing. The
Defendants are, among others, the State of Louisiana and its alias
the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, hence, I have
brought my grievance to the correct court under Article III Section 2
of the United States Constitution. There is a motion for leave to
file. There is a complaint. There is a statement of the case and
briefs in support of my claims. All claims and proofs have been
certified, by me, to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief. All parties have been notified, by certified mail, return
receipt requested and all receipts have been returned. In short,
there is a civil suit pending.
I do not
deny that my form and pagination may be imperfect. Were I not
confined to this walking distance prison, I would have access to law
libraries. Were I not confined to this walking distance prison, I
would have access to Federal Courts and could examine real world
examples of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in action. Were I
not confined to this walking distance prison, I would have access to
my previous research and notes. Were I not confined to this walking
distance prison, I would have presented documents more correct in
form with the same substance.
In
defense of the Clerk I did find that I had not stapled the documents
in the upper left hand corner, but instead had placed two staples
across the top of the documents, as is Louisiana custom. I have
corrected this error.
I did
not include any summons to be served. I did deduce that a notice of
filing and the assigning of a case number by the Clerk of the United
States Supreme Court sent to all parties had superseded a formal
summons as all parties would be fully aware of the implications and
consequences of that action.
There is
another problem with my preparation of a formal summons. I do
contend and do prove that the Governor of the State of Louisiana and
the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana have no right to hold
their respective offices and no standing to appear to defend the
Constitution of the State of Louisiana nor standing to care for the
rights and interests of Citizens of the State of Louisiana. Were I
to prepare a summons to these people, for I can not summons their
office, it may be construed as an acknowledgment, by me, that they
have some right to hold their office. My claim is exactly the
contrary. In point of fact, absent summary judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff, it will require a judicial decision of this Court to
determine who, if anyone, is qualified to stand for the State of
Louisiana and receive the summons. (see BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE LOUISIANA STATE CONSTITUTION DOES
DENY A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA FROM HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE
(Complaint # 4 and 5.) on page 47 of the attached complaint and
briefs in support of the complaint.)
I did
file this complaint, supporting claims and proof of my claims as a
matter of right as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. ( see
JURISDICTION. on page 3 of the attached complaint and briefs in
support of the complaint.) I could have written a book on the
jurisdictional grounds alone, however, I have included only the most
striking grounds only because time and resources are short. I am
fighting for the right and ability to flee for my life. Time is of
the essence. I have already bested the two executioners known as
hurricanes Katrina an Rita. I have already been forced to spend ten
days on an island while besting my third executioner which did arrive
due to the failure of our neglected levies. These are experiences I
am not anxious to repeat. Yet, should another hurricane head our
way, I can not flee. It is hurricane season now. Who can say when my
next natural or man made executioner will appear.
“While making due allowance for any case presented under this
Rule by a person appearing pro se, the Clerk will not file any
document if it does not comply with the substance of these Rules or
is jurisdictionally out of time.” Supreme Court Rule 39.3
“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any
error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the
substantial rights of the parties.” Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 61
Considering
the foregoing, I do formally object to the return of the legally
filed complaint and do move this court to sustain my objection and
properly docket this original action or, in the alternative, if my
claim for redress of grievance does still bear some insurmountable
error, I do demand that I be notified, with some particularity, as to
exactly which rule(s) I have so violated.
I do
hereby certify that the above and attached is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief this 23rd day of July,
2007.
Michael E. DiRosa
c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX - XXXX
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I,
Michael E. DiRosa to hereby certify that I have entrusted to the
United States Postal Authority true and correct copies of this
document and the attached copy of the letter from the Clerk of the
United States Supreme Court, properly addressed, postage paid for
certified mail with return receipt request, to the named parties
listed below. I did not include copies of the original motion,
complaint and briefs in support to the named parties listed below
because they have previously been served with these documents and
return receipts have been received. However, it must be noted that
the original and ten copies that I do return to the United States
Supreme Court have been altered. The staples that did bind the top
of the page have been moved to the top, left hand corner. In all
other respects, the documents previously received are true and
correct copies of the documents I do return to the Supreme Court of
the United States.
Office of
the Governor of the State of Louisiana
P.O. Box
94004
Baton
Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Office of
the Attorney General
P.O. Box
94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Office of
the Secretary
Department
of Public Safety and Corrections
P.O. Box
66614
Baton
Rouge, LA 70896-6614
Certified
this 23rd day of July, 2007
Michael E. DiRosa
c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX - XXXX
TOP
|
