Whether Emperor Moses is entitled to an injunction barring state officials from operating within the Atakapa Indian Nation based on the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase Treaty

No question identified. : . QUESTION (s) PRESENTED On March 15, 2024, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal held that, Edward Moses, Jr., a lawyer who has proclaimed himself “Emperor of the American Empire” and the trustee of the “Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation,” has filed a motion for ; permission to proceed as a sanctioned litigant. This court previously imposed a $2,500 sanction in light of Moses’s repeated advancement of frivolous claims. Moses v. Edwards, No. 21-30270, 2022 WL 1605233, at *1 (5th Cir. May 20, 2022) (unpublished). The sanction remains unpaid. Moses seeks to appeal a disciplinary action that resulted in the district court imposing a $15,000 fine against him and his law firm and suspending him from practicing law in the Middle District of Louisiana for one year. He asserts that he is a hereditary monarch who is immune from punishment and implies that his role as Emperor and trustee of the Atakapa effectively was established by state court judgments related to his alleged administration of a putative spendthrift trust. To obtain permission to proceed as a sanctioned litigant, Moses must demonstrate that he raises a nonfrivolous issue. See Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 1990). ; Moses has not made the required showing. He instead repeats the frivolous claims that he has been admonished ~ not to raise and which, given his legal training, he should know are baseless. Appx.A 1. Whether Emperor Moses is the real party in interest entitled to an injunction barring the state officials from operating within the Atakapa Indian Nation based on a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase Treaty and the 1811 Louisiana Enabling Act. 2. Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals misapprehend and misapply the clearly erroneous standard and accordingly erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal? Yes 3. Chevron is overruled. Can a State Court issue _a decision recognizing the “Atakapa Indian TRIBE OF awntMOSES under the federally recognized Indian tribe list act of 1994? Yes 4. Did the District Court Violate Edward Moses Jr’s right to confront the government in attorney suspension proceedings? yes iii : CORPORATE DISCLOSURE Pursuant to Rule 29.6, Applicant “Emperor Moses,” states that there is no parent or publicly held company owning 10% or more of the corporation’s stock, and that no publicly held company owns any portion of Applicant. PARTIES TO PROCEEDING The