In U.S. v. Union BANK, 1853, 8 La.Ann. 388, and State v. Time, Inc., 249 So2d 328 (1971).
Point 1. In Union Bank, the Louisiana supreme court declared that the government “(STATE) with all its privileges in prosecuting a citizen individual FOR THE BENEFIT of another citizen individual for injury to the latter, will not be tolerated.”
Point 2. In Time, Inc., accepting arguendo that a State of Louisiana is a corporation and can, in certain instances, be called a person (see 81 C.J.S., States, Sec. 213, 49 Am.Jur., States, Territories and Dependendcies, Sec. 80, and State Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 54 S.Ct. 725, 78 L.Ed. 1307(1934), the court cannot agree with the State’s conclusion that the state is a person for purposes of the law of defamation and libel. It is the opinion of this court that a state constitutes a concept or idea, a sort of intangible sovereignty which legally speaking cannot be assaulted, slandered or injured as can an individual with respect to a personality which it does not possess. see State Highway and Public Works Commission v. Cobb, 215 N.C. 556, (1939). Under the American philosophy of government, the state is a creature of the poeple and does not exist separte and apart from the poeple. The state is simply the name given to a governmental system designed to maintain an ordered freeddom, and this system is not considered distinct from or superior to the people. To accept the argument that the state is capable of being injured, or harmed would be to reject the basic American principle that the people are the supreme sovereign and to replace it with the antithetical concept that the state is supreme and exists apart from and independently of the people. As long as ultimate sovereignty resides in the people, the state cannot be thought of as having a separate personality and, therefore, cannot be said to have been harmed.
Clearly, a state’s sovereign NAME cannot be the plaintiff in a criminal suit against a citizen individual (the defendant) for the benefit of the (victim) a citizen individual, who is the real party with actual and substantial interest in the criminal case.
So, if you were charged like me (State of Louisiana v. Walter Edward Johnson, crimainal case no. 10-82-903) then you have a substantial oppertunity of having this judgment reversed as being an absolute nullity, simply file a rule to show cause, a declarative judgment, or a motion to annul an absolute nullity, or an exception of no right and no cause of action, using the law stated above. I am now pending in the 19th judicial district court baton rouge, La.
get back to me at this cite or at the address above. WaltE.
WALTER EDWARD JOHNSON #104558
La. State Penitentiary,
Angola, La. 70712
Categories: Walter Johnson