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