Thursday, August 11, 2016

"Notice of Motion to "Strike" Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), "Defendant United States of America et al" Before “United States Magistrate Judge Frances H Stacy” U.S. Docket No. 4:2016-CV-01354


In The United States District Court

For The Southern District of Texas

Houston Division

Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II      U.S. Docket No.4:2016-CV-01354

                                                                      “Notice of Motion to Strike”

Further appearances                                            “Motion to Strike”

“PLANTIFFS”                                   Defendant United States of America et al

          Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857),

Vs.                                                                    

United States of America et al         

Defendant(s) et al               

Respectfully Appearance Slave Negro (Pro Se Plaintiff) Louis Charles Hamilton II herein (USN) #2712 before "Negro Slaves “PLANTIFFS” collective before Honorable Court Justice

“United States Magistrate Judge Frances H Stacy” presiding herein U.S. Docket No 4:2016-CV-01354 United States Southern District of Texas Federal Courthouse official Notice of Motion to Strike Defendant(s) United States of America et al all “Entire Reply(s) collectively in the matter as described:   

 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857),                            

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.
Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution,

 he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

DRED SCOTT ) v. ) Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court.

JOHN F. A. SANDFORD )

APRIL TERM, 1854.

And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person, comes and says that this court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the action aforesaid, because he says that said cause of action and each and every of them (if any such have accrued to the said Dred Scott) accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Missouri, for that, to-wit:

 the said plaintiff, Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he is a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify. Wherefore, he prays judgment whether this court can or will take further cognizance of the action aforesaid.

JOHN F. A. SANDFORD

To this plea there was a demurrer in the usual form, which was argued in April, 1854, when the court gave judgment that the demurrer should be sustained.

In May, 1854, the defendant, in pursuance of an agreement between counsel, and with the leave of the court, pleaded in bar of the action:

1. Not guilty.

2. That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant, and, as such, the defendant gently laid his hands upon him, and thereby had only restrained him, as the defendant had a right to do.

3. That with respect to the wife and daughters of the plaintiff, in the second and third counts of the declaration mentioned, the defendant had, as to them, only acted in the same manner and in virtue of the same legal right.

In the first of these pleas, the plaintiff joined issue, and to the second and third filed replications alleging that the defendant, of his own wrong and without the cause in his second and third pleas alleged, committed the trespasses, &c.

The counsel then filed the following agreed statement of facts, viz:

In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. I n that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836.

At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the
United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the year 1838.

In the year 1835, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States.
In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, situated as hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as a slave until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling unto the said Dr. Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the year 1838.

In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage.
Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks.

In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza from said Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided.

Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves.

At the times mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times.

Further proof may be given on the trial for either party.

It is agreed that Dred Scott brought suit for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county; that there was a verdict and judgment in his favor; that, on a writ of error to the Supreme Court, the judgment below was reversed, and the same remanded to the Circuit Court, where it has been continued to await the decision of this case.

In May, 1854, the cause went before a jury, who found the following verdict, viz:

As to the first issue joined in this case, we of the jury find the defendant not guilty; and as to the issue secondly above joined, we of the jury find that before and at the time when, &c., in the first count mentioned, the said Dred Scott was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant; and as to the issue thirdly above joined, we, the jury,

 find that before and at the time when, &c., in the second and third counts mentioned, the said Harriet, wife of said Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful property of the defendant.

Whereupon, the court gave judgment for the defendant.

After an ineffectual motion for a new trial, the plaintiff filed the following bill of exceptions. On the trial of this cause by the jury, the plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, read to the jury the following
agreed statement of facts, (see agreement above.) No further testimony was given to the jury by either party. Thereupon the plaintiff moved the court to give to the jury the following instruction, viz:

"That, upon the facts agreed to by the parties, they ought to find for the plaintiff. The court refused to give such instruction to the jury, and the plaintiff, to such refusal, then and there duly excepted."

The court then gave the following instruction to the jury, on motion of the defendant: The jury are instructed, that upon the facts in this case, the law is with the defendant, The plaintiff excepted to this instruction.

Upon these exceptions, the case came up to this court.

In May, 1854, Defendant United States of America et al Missouri that, by the laws of that State,

having full conscious knowledge and professional legal expert fiduciary responsibility that:

The 1790 Naturalization Act reserves naturalized citizenship for whites only was fully enforced against the (Pro Se Plaintiff) the first Presidential Negro Family (Obama) and 44.5 Million Negros legally without legal citizenship after 1865 “civil war” trapped by this continual 1790 (RICO) Naturalization Act as being “Property and an Official”

 Slave “Motion to Strike” each reply, in this criminal prosecution is as defective, when at the same exact time of Bill of Rights - Amendments 1-10 defendant being directly in violation of there on rules of Governing Laws, further acted out “Human Rights Violation against “Dred Scott” merely for “Unjust enrichment” as stated which “Civil War” secured rights of (PLANTIFFS) based on Civil Rights violation of a Human person v. property

– February 7th 2013, when “Defendant” United States of America Mississippi finally as required by (MIA) 13th Amendment of 1865 (December) 148 years (RICO) criminal later free “Nigger/Negro Pro Se Plaintiff on or about February 7th 2013 and as being “Property and an Official” Slave “Motion to Strike” each reply, in this criminal prosecution DRED SCOTT )

v. ) Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court.

JOHN F. A. SANDFORD )

APRIL TERM, 1854 is as defective, when at the same exact time of

“Nigger Slaves” have no rights in defendant (USA) until legally free from “Slavery Servitude” of defendant when “Mississippi” finally freed the “Stupid Nigger Slave herein on or about February 7th 2013 Pursuant to: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), directed at in an nature surrounding Whites Supremacy” control of a (RICO) “Slave Regime” continual enterprise involving violation, past, present and future violations of

18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor), 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor),

“Slavery Servitude” money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, “Slavery Servitude” money laundering statutes, RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), (RICO) directed at DNA (Slave Negro Plaintiffs) collectively as of this undersigned date,

IN RE: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION. Appeals of Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, et al., and Timothy Hurdle, et al.Nos. 05-3265, 05-3266, 05-3305., to refrain from (RICO) in Slavery officially being continual by
“United States of America et al” Justices till February 7th 2013 in a Fraud None- disclosure racket “, for and additional (75) years Negro Plaintiff(s) collectively Slaves of defendant America grand scheme involving the continual criminal acts of

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor), 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor), “Slavery Servitude” money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, “Slavery Servitude” money laundering statutes, RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1),,, very 1000% 1790- 2016 (226) years control, in an ongoing future by the

 “Judicial Branch of Government of Defendant “United States of America” et al MISSOURI STATE , Missouri's Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857

 In its 1857 decision that stunned the nation, the United States Supreme Court upheld slavery in United States territories, denied the legality of (Negro) Plaintiff(s) descendants black citizenship in defendant America, and declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional.

all Said “Laws” contain in Dred Scott fully “Motion to Strike” invalid, null, ineffective, nonviable, useless, worthless, and officially in 2016 (December) on behalf of no-citizenship continual being official “Property and No Citizenship/Slave Pursuant to: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), being in direct acts of

“Human Rights Violation’s (PLANTIFFS) herein officially filed said complaints now 2016 request expedited hearing on an Order to show cause why

1.        each Federal Civil/Criminal Case all described contain herein Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), official in that defendant (USA) committed (RICO) in law and equity Judicial Fraud, Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power of control against herein Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), and each said case laws filed for “Judgment against DNA Negro Race Dred Scott (Plaintiff) never free from “Slavery Servitude till claim 2013 (148) years later being committed under Fraud by defendant (USA) and Co-Defendant (Missouri) in its entire form contained therein being

2.        “Motion to Strike” forever in the Criminal/Civil records of Dred Scott,  Pro Se Slave Negro Plaintiff (Hamilton) and each and every 44.5 Millions of DNA Abused 2016 (December) Negro Slaves collectively herein in this ongoing “Slave Regime” as described in “US Civil and Criminal Case from Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) – 2016 (December) RICO Whites Supremacy forever ungodly Directed at a continual “Just Negro Race Abused Hostage Non-Citizenship defendant America Slave” without”, any 14th amendment of a “Broken Constitution” with the Vacated of all Civil/Criminal Judgment in each and every case separately of Dred Scott,  Pro Se Slave Negro Plaintiff (Hamilton) and each and every 44.5 Millions of DNA Abused 2016 (December) Negro Slaves collectively

In official light of a Criminal ongoing (RICO) schemes August 20th 1619 -  2016 (December) continual (RICO) racket Slavery Servitude surrounding peddling (MIA)  13th and 14th amendment rights, (RICO) Judicial Fraud of civil stole rights, continual Judicial Fraud under law and equity pursuant to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), committed hostile-fashion by the defendant (USA) and Co-Defendant (Texas) past, present well into future

(PLANTIFF NEGRO SLAVES) herein to be continual denied fairly, justly, and proper Honorable Honest in so heard legally before Justice in all matters as required by defendant “whites only” Law.



Subscribed before a Public Notary, On this ____ Day of ______________ 2016



____________________________________

                                  Public Notary



  ________________________________________

Pro Se Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II (USN),

2724 61st street Ste. I-B

Galveston, Texas. 77551

bluefinlch2@gmail.com

832-894-9465

832-344-7134

louishamilton2015@gmail.com

No comments:

Post a Comment