The quest for the one supreme Court of our Constitution continues.

Just down a different path.

We had given up on the courts of the occupational government.

We had put our energies into finding the one supreme Court of our Constitution.

The one supreme Court of our Constitution has "gone missing."

We are back in the courts of the occupational government.

Here is a detailed analysis of what we have done and why in our quest for the One supreme Court.

We have suspected for a long time that the Supreme Court of the United States was not the one supreme Court in which the Judicial power of the United States shall be vested as specified in our Constitution. You need only look at the evolution of our headings in the different classification of supreme court in the right side bar.

We finally found the proof and it can be found in the article TWO Supreme Courts. "Appeals ...shall be had only in the Supreme Court of the United States or in the circuit courts of appeals, hereby established, according to the provisions of this act regulating the same." The Supreme Court of the United States is an inferior court created by congress. There is no doubt. "It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose."

For those of you who believe that we are stretching too far on our interpretation of the wording, I suggest that you reread the Slaughterhouse Cases [translation] when they created the citizenship of the Negro, "It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose." You might also reread the Motor Vehicle License Tax which is a tax on the permission (License) to use the vehicles they just stole from you. "It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose." Or, the qualifications for any State wide public office that requires you to be a citizen of the United States. "It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." "It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose."

Don't forget Louisiana Revised Statute 1:4 does tell us.

"§4.  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

We went into our first clue in story 10. Through the courts Here is an excerpt.

"By the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States in order to submit any paperwork instituting an action it must be preceded by a motion for leave to file. This sounded odd to me. I looked it up in a legal dictionary. If you motion the court for leave to file you are conferring jurisdiction. You wouldn't ask a court that doesn't have jurisdiction to do something. You are asking the court for permission to file. I am claiming that I have a right to file. I don't need permission."

There is no doubt.

We have tried everything we have been able to think of to date to reach the one supreme Court of our Constitution. Every time we get summary judgment from the clerk of an inferior court created by Congress.

On our last attempts we addressed the package to "The one supreme Court in which the judicial power of the United States shall be vested." at their last known address and did demand address correction of our postal authorities (no pun intended.)

Yet, the reply is given by an inferior court created by congress and not even that court but the clerk of that court, and not even the clerk but the assistant to the clerk.

Let's look at the obvious question. Is the Supreme Court of the United States an inferior court created by congress or is it the one supreme Court of our Constitution? How hard of a question is this for the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States? Either it is or it isn't. I don't see a third choice. It is obviously not a valid Louisiana State Court. Yet, in all of this time, why won't anyone say? How many lawyers does it take to answer a straight question? Remember, Clinton? "It depends on what your definition of "is" is."

The wording is clear and unambiguous. Appeals "from the existing circuit courts, shall be had only in the Supreme Court of the United States or in the circuit courts of appeals, hereby established, according to the provisions of this act regulating the same." Two court were established by Congress, the Supreme Court of the United States and the circuit courts of appeals, by the judiciary act of 1891.

Again, how hard of a question is this? Either the Supreme Court of the United States is an inferior court created by Congress or it isn't. Let's grant, for argument sake, that the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States is somebody's nephew and really doesn't know. Are we to believe that there is no one in his close proximity that might know the answer to this question? Maybe even one of the Justices or their clerks might know?

Is it just me? I am reminded of children holding their hands over their ears and singing La La La La and pretending they don't hear. Remember, it's legal until the gavels slaps. But, I digress.

If the Supreme Court of the United States is created by Congress why is this clerk stealing the mail of the superior court? Why is the Postal Authority surrendering it to them?

Let's bring this to the local level. If I were to send papers address to the Louisiana Supreme Court and put the address of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, State of Louisiana by mistake. Is it reasonable to assume that the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, State of Louisiana would realize that the papers were sent to them by mistake? Might the title give them a clue? Would it be reasonable to assume that the Postal Authority might realize that a mistake had been made and take appropriate action? Or, as is happening in this case, should the clerk keep pretending that he is the correct recipient and fraudulently accept the mail?

You can see from my last heading that there could be no misunderstanding as to which court I was trying to reach.

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.)

Again, either he is the clerk of that court or he isn't. The letterhead claims that he is the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States the inferior court created by the treasonous congress in the judiciary act of 1891. Did I misread the judiciary act of 1891? Or, is he fraudulently accepting mail for a different court and issuing summary judgment? But, then again, what difference? He's already confessed to treason so many times, what difference is a little mail fraud too. Could it be that the Supreme Court of the United States is so badly run that he can do this with impunity? God forbid that our health care should run so well.

It took the Postal Authority 16 days (9/8/09 - 9/24/09) to send a first class envelope from New Orleans to Washington and to locate the One Supreme Court.

There can be no doubt that we have found an action suitable for a Sovereign. The Demand for Judicial Process. Nor can anyone misunderstand the title. The documents were returned. Now, let's look at just how ridiculous their claim is.

Let me see if I understand the situation clearly. I have claimed that a treasonous band of conspirators overthrew the Congress of the United States. These treasonous conspirators, illegally in control of Congress, invaded Louisiana and nine other States for the expressed purpose of installing occupational governments and using those occupational governments to change our national Constitution and completely overthrow the United States of America and institute the enslavement of We, the People.

This is historical fact. It is so much of a historical fact that it is the story of "Gone with the Wind," just the legal implications were left out. The legal implication and the overall illegality of the overthrow of the United States is even confessed by the Louisiana Bar Association. [translation] Our unalienable rights were stolen and we were made subjects of the government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

I have claimed that the overthrow of Congress was illegal. I have claimed that the invasion of Louisiana was illegal. I have claimed that the occupational government still infesting Louisiana is illegal and that the Constitution Demands that it all stop.

To this the assistant to the clerk says that "this court is unable to assist you in the matter you present." Which court? Obviously the Supreme Court of the United States. It is on their letterhead. The very court the headings clearly states that I was NOT trying to reach.

The assistant to the clerk says that the jurisdiction of this court (the inferior congressional court of the letterhead) extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower court in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court (the inferior congressional court of the letterhead.)

Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

Let's revisit the Judiciary Act of 1891 when the traitors in control of Congress ordained and established an inferior court call the Supreme Court of the United States and gave it jurisdiction which extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower court in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court (the inferior congressional court of the letterhead.)

Section 4 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, 827, c. 517, provides

"That no appeal, whether by writ of error or otherwise, shall hereafter be taken or allowed from any district court to the existing circuit courts, and no appellate jurisdiction shall hereafter be exercised or allowed by said existing circuit courts, but all appeals by writ of error [or] otherwise from said district courts shall only be subject to review in the Supreme Court of the United States or in the circuit court of appeals, hereby established, as is hereinafter provided, and the review by appeal, by writ of error, or otherwise, from the existing circuit courts, shall be had only in the Supreme Court of the United States or in the circuit courts of appeals, hereby established, according to the provisions of this act regulating the same."

We both agree. The Supreme Court of the United States is an inferior court established by congress (if it were a legal congress) by it's right under article III of the Constitution.

We both agree that the jurisdiction or this inferior congressional court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower court.

Now, if you know that you are the assistant to the Clerk of the inferior congressional court, can it be believed that you are not aware of a superior court to your inferior court. Obviously, it wouldn't be called an inferior congressional court if it were the highest court. To be inferior there must be a superior.

Now, why are you accepting and hijacking their mail?

Let's bring this down to a personal level.

Let's say that you receive certified mail and sign for it. You look at the envelope and you see that it is addressed to your next door neighbor at your house. Well, you reason, they could have gotten the name wrong just as easily as the address and you open the envelope. In the envelope you find a letter from an animal shelter telling your neighbor that they have found his dog but if it is not claimed within 10 days the dog will be destroyed.

You sit down at your computer and, on your own letterhead, you write to the animal shelter.

Dear sir,

In regards to your letter, which I am returning, I must inform you that I do not own a dog. We are not concerned with animal welfare. I operate a construction company. I am sending you a list of our services in case you should need them.

Kindest regards.

In the strictest sense of the word you have not lied. You have only deceived. After all, it's not your problem to track down your neighbor or forward his mail. Explain the distinction to the dog. Explain the distinction to the owner if he should ever find out.

We again sought judicial process from the supreme Court of our constitution and demanded that writs of Habeas Corpus issue in the name of that Court. There can be no doubt that we have the actions of a Sovereign, the correct court, good issues and valid proof.

This time it took the Postal Authority 9 days (9/19/09 - 9/28/09) to send priority mail from New Orleans to Washington and to locate the one supreme Court.

Let's look at the ridiculous claim in the assistant clerk's summary judgment. Here is the July 20th letter to which he refers. This time we will ignore the "Oh you mean the address was wrong and not the name" ploy least we beat it to death.

Even if this were the right court, the assistant to the clerk claims:

"The petition does not show how the writ will be in aid of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, what exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers, and why adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form of from any other court. Rule 20.1."

The first thing that leaps out of this is: Who are you to say? Are you a judge? Or, are you the assistant to the clerk? The overthrow of the United States and the invasion and enslavement of the Sovereigns of the State of Louisiana is not and exceptional circumstance. At least not to the assistant to the clerk of the court. I wonder if he consulted with the janitor? I doubt it. The janitor is probably smarter than this and probably more honorable too. The assistant to the clerk continues.

"The petition does not state the reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which you are held. Rule 20.4(a) pertaining to writs of habeas corpus."

Do I understand that correctly? The application does not show why we did not ask the 26^th judicial district court to save us from the 26^th judicial district court. Or is he speaking of another district court?

It may not be obvious to an assistant clerk that we have been trying to get the 26^th judicial district court to stop attacking us, but it may have been obvious to a judge. A judge might have even noticed that we were talking to a different court, THE Constitutional Court.

The other objections are just jot and tittle counting. We are not going to stop them from beating on you until your jot and tittles are straight. You see it in the Department of Motor Vehicles (stolen) all of the time. You'll soon see it in your health care. All of his objections are bogus. They were all handled in the document. It might have been obvious to a judge. It obviously wasn't obvious to a clerk or assistant clerk. We've been through this so many times before with the Clerk and his assistant. It must be obvious to all by now that they are just playing stupid.

Plus, least we forget, isn't one of our claims that the very rules that he is quoting are invalid because they were created by the treasonous band of conspirators who overthrew the valid Congress of the United States. Did he not just issue summary judgment that the rules are valid because the terrorists in control of Congress had every right to conqueror and enslave us and make these rules? Remember, this is not a judge. This is not the clerk of court. This is the assistant to the clerk of court making these rulings.

Face it. This moron has no right to be making these rulings. As long as they hold their hands over their ears and sing La La La La they will pretend that they don't hear. As long as they don't hear the gavel won't slap. It's legal until the gavel slaps.

We don't believe that we could have made it more obvious to you, our fellow Sovereigns. It is the same ploy that every court, to date, has used.

We have given up the search for the one supreme Court by this direction, for now. We still can't tell if the One supreme Court of our Constitution is imprisoned, disbanded or just too ashamed to show their face. We currently support the latter theory. If we can't find them, we can't complain exactly correctly. As long as we can't find them they won't slap the gavel. It's legal until the gavel slaps. So, if he wants an appeal, we'll give him one. It's back up the ladder of the occupational courts.

Wake up the Sovereigns next to you. Tell them that while they were sleeping the lawyers betrayed us. We have slept much too long.