A Letter to the Governor of Louisiana

                                                                                                                                                               March 25, 2015                                                                                                                 

Dear Bobby Jindal,

I am Marcus de la Houssaye, a tour guide operating in the Atchafalaya Basin, Lake Fausse Point and the Lake Martin swamp since the 1980’s.   www.louisianaswamp.blogspot.com

I would like to invite you to personally visit Lake Martin and experience with me the ambiance and natural beauty of one of our iconic treasures here in our state: A Louisiana swamp tour.

I am extending this invitation to you personally so you can witness something I believe needs to be stopped:  the placement of fraudulent deceptive signage impersonating the authority of your LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES agency, and with that the ONGOING pollution and degradation of the natural beauty and ecology of the swamp by ADDING MORE OF THOSE SIGNS year after year and more AGAIN LAST MONTH with the name of your LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES agency on them along with the co-conspirators name: NATURE CONSERVANCY.

I am writing to you to address this controversy at Lake Martin in St. Martin Parish regarding contracted public access to private property that is considered to be the largest nesting area of wading birds in North America.

This controversy affects you because your agents in the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES are operating outside the law, and conspiring with employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY to unlawfully deprive me of my right to travel and engage in commerce on private property which has been open to the public for commercial or private recreational purposes since the 1950’s.

 I first to came to Lake Martin as a tour guide in 1988 by invitation of Norris Hebert, then president of the Lake Martin Advisiary Committee to do my custom photo safari swamp tours and bring more tourism into St. Martin Parish.

Because I was invited back to a location I first visited while working on a movie called Belizaire the Cajun in 1984, I was delighted that I was welcomed back by Norris and encouraged to use the rookery to help promote tourism in Louisiana, and thus have been using the rookery at Lake Martin for swamp tours since 1988.

It is my job to bring our guests visiting Louisiana as photographers, bird watchers, and nature lovers in close proximity to sensitive situations such as bird and alligator nesting areas, and I do so with decades of professional experience, knowledge and understanding that there is a limit as to how close we can approach without causing a disturbance of normal nesting activity. Because wildlife photography is often documenting nesting birds and the young offspring on the nest, it demands honestly observing normal nesting behavior without causing a disturbance. And so to cause a disturbance of the bird’s normal nesting activity is counterproductive to my profession, and not only that, it also is a violation of an existing state law that I have never been lawfully accused of.

Although most guides build permanent or portable photo blinds to conceal themselves from the birds, I have a better system. I develop a relationship of mutual respect slowly over time between me and the wild birds, and eventually I can bring my swamp tour guests into the rookery at Lake Martin or anywhere and get very close allowing bird watching and photo opportunities, without the birds being disturbed or even flying away, simply because the birds over time have come to know me as a non-threatening movable fixture of the landscape that comes and goes and causes no one harm.

I build these mutual relationships, slowly and over time with the birds based upon respect and trust that allows me to approach and get into close proximity for the benefit of my photography and bird watching clients.

I accomplish this by first approaching a bird and reading body language in order to know when the bird is about to fly, and when I see it set it’s body in takeoff position, I stop the forward motion of my boat, and do not approach further. Gradually over time the bird allows me to get closer and closer. So as I am building this relationship over time and at the same time my guests are raising binoculars and long lens cameras, our relationship grows closer and closer, year after year.

Because some birds return to the place they were hatched at to nest the following year, some of these nesting birds have known me their whole life and from the time they hatched from the egg have never witnessed me cause any harm to another bird as I come and go on a daily basis and this allows the birds to accept me as a normal element of their nesting environment, and act natural and engage in normal nesting activities in close proximity to my boat and in full view of my passengers.

 I have lived a life most people only dream of, and part of which was on a houseboat in the Atchafalaya Basin Swamp where a Great Egret would visit me every morning when it wasn’t nesting season. So the bird was most likely a female or else a male who traveled with his mate to nest elsewhere and then returned after. But this bird taught me that if I was co-operative and made no quick movements that it would over time get so close to me and with my camera on a tripod I did not even need a long lens to pull it in photographically because the bird was standing 10 feet away from me as I drank my morning coffee on the wharf next to my houseboat every morning.

I could not do what I do without first having the birds best interests first in line, and as a swamp tour guide in the rookery investing a great deal of personal time and commercial expense in building these unique relationships with the wild birds, I can also serve as eyes and ears for their protection.

And for the NATURE CONSERVANCY to come along years after I have been there, and attempt to usurp my seniority, belittle my knowledge and professional character, slander me personally, defame my name and character, slander my business’s name and reputation, and all of this has been going on for a decade and a half defrauding the public at large with deceptive unauthorized signage that has your agencies name on it and a 1-800 number to call your agency and report violations?

Violations of what? A corporate policy of the NATURE C0NSERVANCY?

Sir, since when does your employees of LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES follow unlawful orders and work for employees of the ficticious entity: NATURE CONSERVANCY?

After 25 years of doing swamp tours in the rookery, anytime I please, for your agents and their co-conspirators to harass and threaten me now, in an attempt to take that right from me, is to violate that right among others and cause me to suffer personal injuries and commercial property damages.

In the corporate world, being fictional is the name of the game, and apparently anything goes, but in the real world where employees of a non-profit corporation use law enforcement agents of a STATE government agency to cause harm to a valued member of the community? This does not seem reasonable to me.

 And when employees of a non-profit corporation living in a corporate la-la land use law enforcement agents of a STATE government agency to collide with a real man, protected by real law, who is engaged in commerce AND contributing to the PROTECTION OF THE NESTING BIRDS and causes that real man to suffer real injury and damages, someone is responsible for those damages.

 And sir, I have suffered much, and for too long!

 AND THUS, I HAVE ALWAYS GONE INTO THE ROOKERY AT LAKE MARTIN, lawfully and legally because I have consent from the landowners to cross the sacred line of yellow signs that now degrades the natural beauty and defrauds the public at large of their right to enter the rookery anytime they chose.

 Year after year, long before the NATURE CONSERVANCY ever showed up and always after the Nature Conservancy began to put up fraudulent ugly useless signage I have entered the rookery with respect and sacred reverence for the sanctity of reproduction and the ongoing recreation of life on earth. The evidence being in every nest.

The signs were useless because they were not needed to protect the nesting birds from disturbance because I was in the rookery nearly everyday year round doing just that better than any sign posted by someone who sat behind a desk most of the day somewhere else.

The sign above was illegally posted at the Lake Martin Landing by the Nature Conservancy for about 10 years and was recently removed for some strange reason...

I have always been openly contributing to the protection and stewardship of the nesting birds and alligators by advising the LOCAL LAND OWNERS in the Lake Martin Advisiary Committee, the NATURE CONSERVANCY employees, the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES, US Fish and Wildlife Service, OF ANY DISTURBANCES or criminal activity I witnessed or suspected in the rookery in the course of doing my swamp tours.

 Because I was deriving benefits by use of their private property, I have always personally visited and attempted to communicate and build relationships with the local land owners which included the employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY, thus allowing them to easily communicate with me. 

In those meetings I have always expressed a willingness to cooperate with any demands BASED UPON VALID CONCERNS and contribute to the care and maintenance of the ecosystem and all of its inhabitants, and this seems reasonable to me.

 Long before the NATURE CONSERVANCY owned any land around Lake Martin, or began to put up signs on land that they did not own, attempting to mislead the public to believe that they owned the rookery, and needed to protect the birds with signs because I was in the rookery not only helping to protect the alligators and nesting birds from poachers as a part of the neighborhood watch program, I simultaneously was doing swamp tours and never bothered anyone.

Not the birds or the landowners.

 I did as a result of my daily presence in the rookery, report any disturbances I witnessed or crimes I SUSPECTED to the landowners or whatever law enforcement agency seemed relevant such as the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES and everyone seemed appreciative of my contribution to the cause and valued my presence in the rookery including Richard Martin, who serves as executive director of conservation for the NATURE CONSERVANCY in Louisiana.

The LDWF, employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY, and the landowners who are waterfront residents and thus are on the Lake Martin Advisiary Committee were regularly called by phone or visited by me personally to report my observations and therefore all knew I was crossing the sacred line of yellow signs claiming: RESTRICTED AREA DO NOT ENTER DURING BIRD NESTING SEASON, put up by agents of a corporation which is legally speaking a ficticious entity known as the NATURE CONSERVANCY.

 Everyone, including law enforcement agents of the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES knew I was going into the rookery during bird nesting season long before and always after the signs went up, and never gave me any warnings or citations indicating that I was disturbing the birds or violating any law. In fact, the agents of the LDWF themselves claimed THE SIGNS were illegal 15 years before they changed their mind.

Thus for over a decade AFTER THE SIGNS WENT UP, no one INCLUDING the employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY, attempted in any way to restrict me from going in there until a hot little rooky trying to make a name for himself came along, named Matt Pardue, an employee of the NATURE CONSERVANCY who arrived at Lake Martin around 2010 to the best of my knowledge.

The NATURE CONSERVANCY first began posting deceptive signs beginning in or about 1998, misleading people to believe that those DO NOT ENTER signs were put up by the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES, AND that there was therefore just cause for the placement of signs such as a “real” disturbance of the nesting birds.

Yet in retrospect it appears that those signs were put up for no other purpose but to deceive the public and create the illusion that the birds were being harmed and “needed” to be protected from ME.

Yet though I never disturbed the birds, I did from the time they got there, to some degree disturb the employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT IS NOT A CRIME. In spite of a lack of evidence to support their verbal claims of a disturbance of the birds and placement of deceptive signage suggesting that a restriction was in place because one was needed, to my knowledge they have no evidence that I was ever committing a crime by disturbed the birds or violating a lawful restriction when going into the rookery to do my swamp tours.

 And if these disturbed individuals were operating as employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY and under a presumption yet without proof that I was violating a law because they were themselves deceived by that fraudulent campaign of deceptive signage created by the NATURE CONSERVANCY for that purpose, would they because of ignorance of the law and as a victim of the fraud be excused for the damages they caused me when they “made” your agent give me a citation for violating the restriction on the Lake Martin Rookery, WHEN IN FACT YOUR AGENT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, and advised them of such, that there actually was no law behind the signs that restricted me a non-corporate agent from going into the rookery?

And I think a reasonable answer to that question is no, they would not.

And if there ever was a Louisiana state law behind the signs and in line with the NATURE CONSERVANCY corporate policy, why after 15 years of me going into the rookery past the signs during the corporate policy restriction is your LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES agent James “Dusty” Rhodes, who knew I was in there all along, trying to enforce it now?

And I believe a reasonable answer to that question is: Because there never was a legislatively created Louisiana state law behind the signs and in line with the corporately created NATURE CONSERVANCY corporate policy.

And if there was a law violated when I was cited, why when I got to court did the charge at arraignment read: ‘adoption of rules and regulations of wild birds’ and not a violation of the restriction on the Lake Martin Rookery?

And I believe a reasonable answer to that question is: I was not prosecuted according to the charge on the citation because I did not disturb the birds, nor did I violate a restriction on the Lake Martin Rookery to begin with because there was no lawful restriction ever legislatively created by the STATE OF LOUISIANA that applied to me, a living sovereign being!

Is it not the right of the land owner to use their land any time and any way they chose, including allowing me to go into the rookery during the corporate restriction imposed by NATURE CONSERVANCY?

 And I believe a reasonable answer to that question is yes, it would be their right.

And if employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY are conspiring with your agents of the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES to deprive me of my right to access the rookery by boat and engage in commerce on private property owned by people who have the right to use their property as they chose, and thus having granted me permission to access the rookery  24/7/365, would it also be a violation of USC Title 18 sec. 241, a conspiracy to deprive rights of me AND THE LAND OWNER, and thus be a federal crime AGAINST BOTH OF US AS THE INJURED PARTY as well?.

And I believe a reasonable answer to that question is yes, it would.

This is the major defect of the NATURE CONSERVANCY claim against me that I somehow disturb the nesting birds: 

A lack of evidence such as eye witnesses, in contempt of 25 years of eye witnesses to the contrary.

This is the major defect of the LDWF claim that I violated a restriction on the Lake Martin Rookery:   There is no lawful legislative restriction that applies to me, an unincorporated sovereign living being.

And if the employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY have no evidence that I have committed a crime, then to falsely accuse me of one is a crime.

 Then to DEMAND that an agent of the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES give me a citation, based on presumption, and when that agent moves against me without evidence he is without jurisdiction because there was no just cause to move or act upon NATURE CONSERVANCY arrogant unjust demands, and he is in denial of due process of law under Title 5 USC sec. 556 (d)

(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.

Employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY first began creating this fraud by posting deceptive ILLEGAL signs and impersonating the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES authority beginning in or about 1998.

The deception began first with yellow metal handmade signs that read:

    DO NOT ENTER DURING BIRD NESTING SEASON

               VIOLATORS MAY BE PROSECUTED

                  BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

And some of these signs now covered with lichens are still in place as evidence to this day.

 The first day I saw the signs, I called the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES office in Opelousas, and they told me the signs were illegal because the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES had NOT PUT THEM UP. When I asked them what should I do, I was advised to ignore the signs and he told me to continue doing my swamp tour business as usual in the rookery.

About a year or two later, the NATURE CONSERVANCY added to what was already there and put up a new set of signs almost exactly like the first set, but now claiming violators WILL BE PROSECUTED, and I continued to do tours in the rookery openly, and advised everyone involved of what I was doing in there, because like the first set of signs, there was no law behind those either.

The third round of deceptive signage came a year or so later with the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 1-800 number on it and an announcement on the 5 o’clock news in a Lafayette television news program that a law had been passed banning boats in Lake Martin “in order to protect the nesting birds”.

When I called then Senator Mike Michot to inquire about them passing a law banning boats on Lake Martin, which would adversely affect my business, he advised me that they had NOT passed a law in the senate but, that “they had handled it ‘administratively’ ”. Meaning the administration had created an administrative rule under emergency statute blah, blah, blah.

Search as I may, I have as yet to find a law on the books that restricts me the living man, from entering and operating my boat in the rookery at Lake Martin at any time, or a law that I have violated that protects the nesting birds

 For the first few years after the signs went up, I was the only other boat going into the rookery during nesting season besides the suspected poachers at night, and the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES plant control boats in the day time.

And I reported to Richard Martin year after year numerous incidents of the plant control boats violating the restriction, and at the same time spraying so close to nests with baby birds in it that the babies jumped OR WERE SPRAYED OFF THE NEST.

Thus everyone KNEW I WAS IN THE ROOKERY because I reported the disturbances repeatedly trying to get some support from the LMAC.

As I was filming a video of a mother bird nesting and raising her young on the north-west side of Lake Martin a few years ago, I arrived one day to continue producing my documentary movie, and the nest was empty. As I looked around and smelled the air, it was evident that plant control had come and gone in the last 24 hours since my last video shoot, and the baby birds were gone too! Now I was not there to witness what happened while plant control boat came through, but I have seen baby birds jump or get blown off the nest by taxpayer purchased herbicide being applied by a LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES boat using a pressure sprayer on more than one occasion.

And…. I was in the rookery monitoring a disturbance of the nesting birds by the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES plant control employees who were using boats to enter the rookery and apply herbicide to kill plants in very close proximity to baby birds on the nest during the restricted time frame in the summer of 2012 when LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES James “Dusty” Rhodes gave me a citation for “violating the restriction on the Lake Martin rookery”.

Ironically your employees of the division of plant research and control not only entered the rookery by boat during the restricted time frame to spray herbicides , they repeatedly during the spring and summer of 2012 when “I” was cited for “violating the restriction on the Lake Martin rookery” assaulted the floating mat of plants ON ALL SIDES  of the rookery, WITH HERBICIDES even spraying into the rookery from the back of a LDWF pick-up truck on the road and indiscriminately killed the plants that supports the food chain and supplies the adult nesting birds with food for their babies.

And apparently it doesn’t matter to employees of LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES that there is a cluster of bright yellow signs strung out east to west from one levee to the other declaring:    RESTRICTED AREA DO NOT ENTER DURING BIRD NESTING SEASON and it doesn’t matter BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND I AM NOT.

Not only did they destroy the “garden” that generates food 24/7/365 for the entire ecosystem and food chain, they impacted the adult nesting birds ability to conveniently feed their young, and thus THEY DISTURBED THE NORMAL NESTING ACTIVITY OF THE WADING BIRDS, by reducing the available food supply in the near vicinity of the nesting area WHEN THEY caused repeated fish kills.

One thing I noticed in the winter of 2014/2015, is after 3 years of intense plant control activity decreasing the plant mass so much and causing repeated fish kills that there was very little evidence of wading birds perhaps due to a food shortage in the critical winter months. And I suspect that is due to so much of their feeding area and food supply being destroyed by plant control herbicide. Not only that, typically the early nesters begin in mid-January, but this year they did not begin to appear until the beginning of March.

It would appear that the plant control has been managed primarily to benefit kayakers, and I am a member of the Sierra Club, so I am pro-kayak, and my friends who kayak are complaining about the plant control damage, which falls on deaf ears at the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES.

In fact the spraying of herbicide is so out of control by your employees that they have blindly wiped out hundreds of acres of button bush on all four sides of the lake and the floating mat of aquatic plants beneath it which supports the entire food chain in the ecosystem, and now claim; “It looks much better”.

Those four sides of Lake Martin that were a part of the most wildlife intensive ecosystem I had ever witnessed, are now by comparison with respect to wildlife, an aquatic desert, however photographic.

 At a Sierra Club meeting in June 2013 Alex Perret, your PR man for plant control confessed that they had assaulted the floating mat of plants at Lake Martin in the rookery area 7 times during the winter between December 2012 and April 2013. When I asked him why spray so much in the winter time when plants don’t grow, he replied it was for navigation purposes and more cost effective that way. When I asked him if he was aware of an algae bloom then a fish kill in April 2013 he replied no.

So I explained when the water warmed up in April and bacteria began decomposing the accumulated dead plants of seven incidents of plant control ALL AT ONE TIME, it depleted so much oxygen so fast as a result of so many dead plants being killed by herbicide and stored, refrigerated and preserved in the water for months at about 40-50’, that the end result of 7 incidents of plant control was an algae bloom and then a fish kill. This was the second in six months that I have every reason to believe were BOTH CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES.

The irony here Mr. Jindal is: when plant control first came to Lake Martin in 1997, the plant control ‘’experts’ in the LDWF claimed that the purpose of reducing the plant mass with herbicide was to PREVENT FISH KILLS!

And if acting as if they were above the law and I am NOT by entering the rookery during the restricted time frame TO SPRAY HERBICIDE were not enough disrespect of the law BY YOUR EMPLOYEES IN THE LDWF DIVISION OF PLANT RESEARCH AND CONTROL, consider that spraying so much herbicide IN AND AROUND the rookery in all four seasons, to cause repeated fish kills decreases the food supply and doing this in close proximity to the rookery is A DISTURBANCE OF NORMAL BIRD NESTING ACTIVITY, and ON both counts are a violation of STATE law!

BTW, Alex Perret, your Public Relations man of the LDWF Division of Plant Research and Control advised us to call the plant control complaint line and advise them of the fish kills or ANY other complaints such as excessive spraying. So, a Viet Nam veteran who was at the Sierra Club meeting, aware that 2-4d is the chemical used by plant control at Lake Martin later called and asked what are you spraying and why are you spraying so much as to cause fish kills and the reply from your employees, who are supposed to act as OUR public servants was: they hung up on him!

And this is unreasonable to me for a public servant to refuse to answer questions presented to them by an honored veteran who suffered exposure to the same chemical in Viet Nam.

And after speaking to hunters and fishermen, who have accessed the rookery by boat to hunt and fish since the 1950s and also speaking to an administrator and witness of the contract created between the land owners and the state granting public access to their private property for 100 years beginning in or around 1953, I am convinced that we the people have a right to enter the rookery at Lake Martin by boat at any time and engage in lawful recreation activities such as hunting ducks by boat, or from the levee, and hunting squirrels on the levee, and or fishing by boat, and including, but not limited to my swamp tours.

Mr. Jindal if you are aware of a law that super cedes the owner’s rights to grant me permission and lawfully restricts me from entering the rookery at LM at any time please share that with me, otherwise consider this a notice of intent to litigate regarding the injuries and property damages I have suffered as a result of the outrageous judicial fraud and fiasco that followed after your agent accused me of violating a law that does not exist and handing that to the prosecutor who then filed a false information with the clerk of court!

To make matters worse for you as employer, Dusty Rhodes then sent two more citations in the mail to create the illusion of me being a repeat offender when we got to court.

However because there is no law restricting the rookery at Lake Martin nor therefore could there be evidence of a violation of a law that does NOT exist, all of this began and proceeded as a judicial fraud, without jurisdiction start to finish, and just like the fraudulent signage that was the genesis of our story here, the LDWF never did a damn thing to object to the fraud but were instead accomplices to it!

Therefore to use the USPS to commit fraud is a federal crime of mail fraud, and I have reported this crime to the FBI agents in Lafayette, Louisiana.

After research and due diligence in legal libraries for over a decade, I have not found evidence on the books that lawfully restricts me, Marcus de la Houssaye, a living man, from access to the private property open to the public for recreational purposes in the area known as the rookery at Lake Martin, whether it is owned by the Nature Conservancy or not,

but I have found this:

According to La. Revised statute 15, 525; any agent, member or employee of a corporation must abide by rules, regulations, or restrictions of said corporation.

And if equality is paramount and “no one is above the law”.

And a corporation being a ficticious entity, ‘it’ CAN lawfully create ‘corporate’ restrictions by the mere application of signage even on land it does not own.

 But a corporation being a ficticious entity, it cannot lawfully create restrictions and rule over or restrict lawful activities of unincorporated living beings outside its corporate realm unless of course perhaps those living beings who live in the real world, are invited onto corporate owned property or perhaps if they are trespassing on corporate owned property.

Yet, here is another example of the presumption of authority, the abuse of power and the fraud at the NATURE CONSERVANCY:

 The employees of the NC now close the walking trail to protect the momma alligators during nesting season and I am OK with that. But after Matt Pardue arrives, he closes the trail, and he posts a sign at the gate that claims to ban anyone from disturbing the alligators during nesting season, picking wild plants, riding ATV’s, and other nonsense such as no swimming.

After posting the sign, closing the trail to the public, and banning everyone else, I witness Matt Pardue riding on an ATV on the walking trail, WITH A HERBICIDE SPRAYER on it spaying selective ‘weeds’, in violation of NC corporate policy, which is also a violation of La. Revised statute 15, 525 which requires employees of corporations to abide by corporate policy.

And to my knowledge the posting of signage is all that is required in the fictional corporate world to create policy. 

I later investigate the damage to the plant life on the levee and realize that most of the wild edibles in the spring are finished before he sprayed, but now I must be aware that the plants I have gathered as wild food in the past may now be poisoned in the future by someone at the NATURE CONSERVANCY violating the ban on riding the ATV on the levee.

And the same person who creates a NATURE CONSERVANCY corporate restriction of picking wild plants on everyone else now comes with herbicide and kills any plants he wants to kill?

Oh, BTW, the land he is spraying does not even belong to the NATURE CONSERVANCY. 

A couple of days after he sprayed, I noticed the plants around a new alligator nest on the west levee  were dying and it appeared that he sprayed a 4 foot radius around that nest, and I wondered why. 

To this day, I don’t have a clue why, but soon after Matt Pardue violated the corporate ban on ATV’s, and sprayed herbicide around this nest, I discovered that a coon raided the nest and had eaten the eggs. One thing about the alligator/herbicide relationship is very evident: alligators hate it, evidenced by their disappearance after an incident of spraying.  And because the fumes of 24-d burns my eyes and nostrils for days after an incident of spraying, my best guess is: it irritates the alligators too.

In this case my best guess is: Matt sprayed herbicide, but momma had already laid her eggs in that nest and could not move them nor tolerate the chemical burns and abandoned it. Then the eggs had no protection when the coons showed up, and you know the rest of the story:

An incompetent employee of the NATURE CONSERVANCY who closed the trail and put up signs to “protect” the momma alligators from everyone else, caused an alligator nest to fail by applying herbicide sprayed from an ATV on the levee where she was nesting. Not only was Matt Pardue violating NC corporate policy by disturbing a nesting alligator, he violated STATE law on that one too.

Had I not been in the rookery doing a swamp tour and monitoring the alligator nests, I would not have witnessed Matt Pardue disturbing a nesting alligator so bad, she failed in her nesting attempt.

I went onto the levee periodically to witness the adjustment of the plant life after he sprayed and it has never been the same. Due to the high concentration he used, it scorched the earth, and the evidence of his destruction is still there today. It appeared that his selective target was what is commonly called “rag weed”.  Now as much as that is a weed to most people, I grew up on a farm and rag weed is food for pigs, and in Cajun French country terminology we call it pig weed for that reason. And if pigs eat it, then it is safely regarded as edible to a lot of other species too.

 And if employees, or members of the NATURE CONSERVANCY, a non-profit corporation posted signage claiming a restriction on boat entry into a sensitive bird nesting area, DURING A CERTAIN TIME FRAME and said corporations name is on the signage, would that corporate created restriction apply to employees, agents, and members of the NATURE CONSERVANCY under La. Revised statute 15, 525, as no one is above the law?

And I believe a reasonable answer to that question is yes, under La. law it would apply to them.

And if employees, or members of the NATURE CONSERVANCY, a non-profit corporation posted signage on land they did not own, and attempted to enforce a restriction on non-corporate living beings who actually have permission from the land owners, would the NATURE CONSERVANCY employees have the power and authority at any time to overrule THE OTHER LAND OWNERS RIGHTS to grant me permission and lawfully restrict activities of living beings who live in the real world and are not contracted into the NATURE CONSERVANCY corporate realm?

And I believe a reasonable answer to that question is no, it would not grant them power or authority to rule over THE OTHER LAND OWNERS RIGHTS to grant me permission to enter the rookery during bird nesting season or restrict the activities of ANY law abiding, respectful, intelligent, knowledgeable, legally competent sovereign living being who choose to live, operate and exist outside the limitations and ficticious restrictions of the ficticious NATURE CONSERVANCY corporate realm.

And if the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES name is on the signage, would this restriction to boats entering the rookery during bird nesting season also apply to law enforcement agents and plant control employees of the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES as well?

 And I believe a reasonable answer to that question is yes, it would apply to them as well.

Mr. Jindal if you can provide evidence that your agents AND employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY acted unlawfully when they in concert conspired to deprive me of my right to access the rookery of wading birds at Lake Martin, based upon evidence that I violated a law protecting the birds, I will consider this matter resolved.

But failing to present a copy of the law I violated for the last 15 years by entering the rookery that led to your agent finally giving me a citation on July 18, 2012, and provide evidence of the claim by the NATURE CONSERVANCY that I violated a state law by disturbing the nesting birds at ANY point in history, supported by affidavit sworn under oath and penalty of perjury of an eye witness, that they actually saw me disturb the birds, consider this a criminal complaint against everyone involved. 

Should you fail to hold your employees, who act like they are above the law and I am not, accountable for the trespass and crimes committed that resulted in me suffering personal injury and property damage, consider this a notice of criminal complaint that does include you as the principle of those law enforcement agents and the employer of employees of the plant control division of the LDWF, all of who act who act like they are above the law and I am not. And this seems unreasonable to me as my public servants acting as your employees are disrespecting me AND THE LAW.

Now sir as serious as this all sounds, I am sure you and I can come to an understanding that allows me to be free and live without fear of further harassment by your agents.

 Furthermore be advised that when I created a sovereign nation and expatriated from the de-facto US, Inc., and its subsidiary” STATE OF LOUISIANA prior to the trespass committed by your agent in my jurisdiction, I did so because I have been harassed, threatened, and disrespected by agents of Louisiana’s Gestapo, AKA LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES for over 25 years.

I had had enough and started studying law, and I discovered that I had been an accessory to a fraud without knowledge. Realizing the error of my ways, I renounced my allegiance to a corporation called UNITED STATES and relocated politically into the Republic of Louisiana.

And if anyone thinks they can cross the border from STATE OF LOUISIANA which is limited as a ficticious entity to corporate jurisdiction only, and come into my real and sovereign nation, where ALL men are created equal. AND attempt to presume to be my superior, is dishonorable.  AND THEN falsely accuse, assault, kidnap, hand cuff, arrest, and attempt to bring me back into the UNITED STATES under a false and mistaken identity which caused your agents and deputies of St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office as an end result of IDENTITY THEFT and FRAUD on the birth certificate? 

And all of this against my will, and meanwhile I HAVE 6 CONTRACTS as EVIDENCE on file as apostilles at the Secretary of State Office in Baton Rouge, declaring that I am NOT a corporation, nor am I identified by OR AS: MARCUS L. DELAHOUSSAYE.

One of these is a treaty of peace declaring that I want to honorably live in peace, and in harmony with agents of the STATE OF LOUISIANA, which is a ficticious entity that cannot have legal jurisdiction over a living being without a contract.     Treaty of Peace, apostille # 15,619

BTW, I mailed CERTIFIED a copy to your employee Robert Barham in 2012 about 90 days before Dusty presented me with an offer to contract. COULD THIS BE WHY AFTER 15 YEARS, I WAS CITED?

You and your employees are in dishonor and defaulting on the contracts.

Sir, I am not aware that I ever contracted with you or your agents TO BE SUBJECT to their tyrannical presumptions that I am THEIR inferior and THEY ARE MY SUPERIOR.

However I did contract with you and your agents filed at the Secretary of State Office here:

Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right, apostille # 15,621 on 31^st of Jan. 2013

How can an agent of a corporation which is a ficticious entity without contract have superior power, authority, and jurisdiction over a living man armed with legal knowledge, confidence and the truth?

This seems unreasonable to me because:

 That is impossibility in the natural world because it is impossible to serve a ficticious entity, and

simultaneously claim to be a public servant of real living beings and then try to trump the authority and rights of a real living being who is legally and lawfully speaking is the public servants sovereign master. 

And for an agent of a ficticious entity to behave this way in relation to a sovereign living being is a crime in the CORPORATE legal world because it violates UCC 1-207.    Notice of Expatriation, apostille # 13,634

 In accordance with:

 Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters, (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),

"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, & a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating & attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons & the contracts between them."

Because the city, parish, and state are all corporations, they are limited to and can only lawfully move against the corporate created fictitious entity named MARCUS LORING DELAHOUSSAYE, which is a straw man, or dummy corporation initially created by the de-facto CORPORATE government without the knowledge, consent or voluntary intent of the natural living man Marcus Loring: de la Houssaye, and only exists under the color of law and can claim only to be legally incorporated for the purpose of corporate commerce, and thus exercising the powers and functions of a corporation, without any actual lawful government authority to do so over the living man, but strictly for the benefit of the corporate government and its commerce.

 However should I appear to agree to be identified by MARCUS L. DELAHOUSSAYE, and thus be converted into a corporation created by US, Inc. to be held accountable for the debts brought against the accused I would be an accessory to that fraud whether I knew it or not.

 And I do not consent to being forced into contract as an accessory to a fraud!     

And if I was forced to be identified by MARCUS L. DELAHOUSSAYE, and thus be converted into a corporation which is a ficticious entity created by US, Inc. to be held accountable for the ficticious debts brought against the accused, I would be enslaved and this would thus violate the 13^th amendment that bans slavery, would it not?

The “Common Law” system upon which our nation was founded has been replaced without our knowledge and consent and changed into the present “Commercial Law” system, attempting to convert us from being American Sovereigns "over" government, to being slave subjects "under" government.

And all of this is accomplished by causing us to believe we are identified as the corporation on the birth certificate in order to legally yet unlawfully allow AGENTS OF A CORPORATION to have jurisdiction, which would not be there otherwise, without contract. Because: today, it is all about corporations AND the contracts between them.

U.S.C., TITLE 18, Sec. 241:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with the intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –

They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.”

And if I was forced to be identified by MARCUS L. DELAHOUSSAYE, and thus be converted into a corporation which is created by US, Inc. it would violate my first amendment right to freedom religion by forcing me to claim to be the “son” of the US, Inc. and not a child of God, which is a violation of the first commandment: Have no other Gods before me.

     But I am no longer suffering identity theft as MARCUS L. DELAHOUSSAYE is NOW my private copyrighted property, AND a corporation I CLAIMED ON MY UCC-1 in January 2013. I have reclaimed my birthright, and as an American Sovereign, I serve as ambassador of the republic state of Louisiana.

I can be reached by phone at 337 298 2630 should you like to discuss this matter.

I would prefer to communicate with you personally as my dealings with your agents in the past was the cause of my studying law and ultimately expatriating from the corporate realm as a US citizen and into the real world as an American Sovereign.

Please be advised that your agent’s actions are a serious default of every contract I have on file at the SSO in Baton Rouge and filed to prevent such actions from damaging me and giving me legal remedy if they do.  Each and every one of these affidavits is in fact and application a denial of corporate existence and was on file prior to the trial in St. Martin Parish February 6, 2013 canceling any presumption that I, Marcus Loring: de la Houssaye under La. Revised statute 15, 429 am incorporated.

I, Marcus Loring: de la Houssaye have been granted lifetime, irrevocable, exclusive agency to represent MARCUS L. DELAHOUSSAYE with power of attorney in fact over my copyrighted property.

Make no mistake my private copyrighted property is mine, but it is NOT me.

Notice of Copyright, apostille # 15,620 on 31^st of Jan. 2013

And all of this began when an employee of the NC to quote Dusty Rhodes ”made” him come and give me a ticket for violating the restriction on the Lake Martin rookery?

Even leading up to me nullifying the sentence after the fraudulent court proceedings, and sending that as a criminal complaint to the sheriff, attached to a notice of rejection of offer to contract.

He accepted and agreed to it by tacit compliance and then defaulted on the contract by sending his agents who were reluctant to arrest me on a warrant that seemed out of order because it was signed by a judge from Lafayette which is a different jurisdiction than the 16^th judicial district.

The officer further confessed that he had never seen this in all his days as an officer to arrest someone on a misdemeanor warrant.

When I asked to see the warrant, it was not presented to me when demanded, and thus he violated an article of the Bill of Rights.

I did not sign a contract to be on probation because I was not charged with nor convicted of a crime, as there was no evidence admissible in court of a crime ever occurring entered into the record.

And if I did not contract to be on probation for a year, and pay $1,865 administration fees, how could there ever be a lawful warrant executed against me for violating “my” probation?

BTW, if you think $1,865 in fines violates my constitutionally protected right to be protected from excessive fines, I could not agree more!

Thus the judge was moving under presumption, not fact, and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

The prosecutor filed false charges in the name of a ficticious PLAINTIFF which is a ficticious entity also known as STATE OF LOUISIANA, claiming damages against a ficticious defendant: DELAHOUSSAYE, MARCUS L. which is MY COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY. Notice of Copyright, apostille # 15,620

Consider this: how could I, a real living man, be responsible for a ficticious debt brought against a ficticious defendant, in the name of a ficticious plaintiff if in fact a ficticious entity does not exist in the real world for a real man to damage? That is naturally and legally impossible! And I do not consent to be an accessory to this fraud.     Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right, apostille # 15,621

Of the unadmissable evidence that was presented anyway in court was: only photo copies of photographs from an un-manned camera, photo copies of photographs from space and the testimony of your LDWF agent who was NOT an eyewitness of a crime, because none actually occurred. 

James “Dusty” Rhodes knew there was no law being violated when he went into the rookery and gathered the photographic evidence to charge me with a crime because he knew there no law in place to be violated, and thus he knew no crime had occurred.

And that is fraud.

What is most interesting about this is he never warned, cited or tried to stop me from going into the rookery for 15 years prior to giving me that citation. Then on July 18^th, 2012 contrary to a 15 years precedent, he changed his mind?

And if he knew there was no law for 15 years prior to giving me the citation on July 18, 2013, he was lying under oath when on the stand in court February 6, 2013 testifying against me in contempt of a 15 year precedent?

 Because to my knowledge, no law ever existed for me to violate, and for your agents to once again AS OF February 15,2015, participate in this fraud and allow the posting of new signs last month and further degrade the natural beauty and ecosystem that my business is built upon is an ongoing damage to my commercial property that I am continuing to suffer, and that seems unreasonable to me, as I am not aware of any law that exists behind the signs AND THIS ENTIRE FIASCO IS ALL A FRAUD.

And all of this began when an employee of the NATURE CONSERVANCY to quote Dusty Rhodes ”made” him come and give me a ticket for violating the restriction on the Lake Martin rookery?

No, it began when the NC first posted fraudulent signs impersonating the authority of the LDWF in an attempt to overextend their jurisdiction, and unfortunately James Dusty Rhodes is too dumb to know where to draw the line!

 But I do!

He has in fact crossed the border from corporate policy enforcement in a fictional la-la land into the real world, ran into a real man, committed real crimes, based upon real law, and caused real property damage and real personal injury. And my guess is he will be real apologetic to me after you read this notice and talk to him on my behalf.

And to my knowledge there is no law in existence nor ever was that applies to me, restricting and preventing me from going into the rookery as I have for over 25 years now.

BUT THERE IS A WHOLE BUNCH OF NEW SIGNS UP AS OF FEBRUARY 15, 2015 to add to the fraud!

And if I don’t go in there because of all of the history listed above and risk injuries, damages, and threats of future damages and injury, I am allowing my public servants to co-conspire with the employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY to commit fraud, and violate my rights, and this seems unreasonable of me as I would be guilty of knowledge neglect not to object to their crimes and trespass against the public at large, evidenced by their crimes and trespass against me!                             

So, Mr. Jindal I believe and hope you will appreciate my bringing these personal injuries and property damages that I have personally suffered to light so you can address the conduct of your employees based upon their presumptions that they are above the law and I am not.

Should you need to rebut any facts or claims I have made here, please do so in affidavit form sworn under oath and penalty of perjury as I have here.

      You have hereby been legally noticed of this fraud, conspiracy to deprive rights, personal injury, and property damage and your involvement, whether knowingly or unknowingly, and you therefore may make no future claim of a lack of knowledge of these criminal activities, and the consequential personal injuries and property damage and your participation therein, which could if you were unaware absolve you of liability or culpability.

 If you were not previously aware of the above mentioned fraudulent and criminal activity leading to my suffering personal injury and commercial property damages, and may be an innocent party in this matter, I would urge your utmost cooperation with me while we investigate this matter, as well as ordering your employees and agents to cease and desist in all of their activities relating to the ongoing fraud, conspiracy to deprive rights, threats of jail if I am “caught” in the rookery again, as well as the excessive application of herbicides by your employees in the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES Division of Plant Research and Control leading to the destruction of the natural beauty and ecology of the Lake Martin ecosystem that my business was built upon.

And all of this began when an employee of the NATURE CONSERVANCY to quote Dusty Rhodes ”made” him come and give me a ticket for violating the restriction on the Lake Martin rookery?

And do you know he testified to that on the stand in court February 6, 2014 in front of witnesses?

The employees of the NATURE CONSERVANCY to quote Dusty Rhodes ”made” him come and give me a ticket for violating the restriction on the Lake Martin rookery?

No, it actually began the day when the NATURE CONSERVANCY put up fraudulent signs over 15 years ago that impersonated the authority of the LDWF and I immediately called Dusty Rhodes’s supervisor in Opelousas and he told me the signs were ILLEGAL, and to IGNORE THE SIGNS and continue doing business as usual.

IF I CHOOSE TO DO SO, I WILL ALSO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROOFS OF CLAIM AFTER THIS NOTICE, AND FILE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE POLICE, SHERIFFS OFFICES, THE STATE AND FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE, THE STATE INSURANCE COMMISIONERS OFFICE AND THEN AN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LIEN AGAINST YOU AND EVERYONE INVOLVED BY COMMON LAW DUE PROCESS, FOR A PERIOD OF 99 YEARS OR UNTIL I CHOOSE TO REMOVE THE LIEN.

IF YOU CAUSE DURESS, OR DAMAGE TO ME, THREATEN OR INJURE ME IN ANY WAY, PREPARE TO STAND PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR IT! ANY INJURY BY ANY CORPORATE POLICY ENFORCER OR PUBLIC OFFICIAL ON MY NATURAL BEING WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ACT OF TERRORISM AND BROUGHT BEFORE THE PUBLIC.

Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my free-will and common law activities and rights after having been served this notice and commits such transgressions will be dealt with personally in a proper legal fashion in courts of COMMON LAW, which is the supreme law of the land, and thus a higher power, authority and jurisdiction than any corporate commercial jurisdiction!

Signed under oath and penalty of perjury.

_____________________________________________________     _______________________

                             Marcus Loring: de la Houssaye                                                 March 25, 2015

       _____________________________

                         Notary Public                                                       March 25, 2015

I can be reached by phone at 337 298 2630 should you like to discuss this matter.

“There is no way 100,000 Brits can control 300,000,000 Indians without our consent.” M. G.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.