Case Law Used

This site is under construction. Content changes. Impute welcome.

      The Case Law Used presented here represents the ideals intended by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution and declared in Case Law by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts. Please note the dates of the cases. By looking at some resent Supreme Court rulings you will see the courts are complicit and enabling an ongoing conspiracy to oppress the commanded protections in our Constitution.


USA vs. Butler, 297 US 1

Butler explains that the constitution is the Supreme Law of the the Land and gives a test to use to see if a Law was made in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Butler is clear that once an act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not conforming to the constitutional mandate the judicial branch of the Government has only one duty, - ANNOUNCE ITS CONSIDERED JUDGMENT UPON THE QUESTION!

Marbury vs. Madison, 1 CRANCH 137

Marbury vs. Madison explains that judges take an oath to support the Constitution and that A LAW REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS VOID! This case shows that judges know they are commiting a crime when they refuse to support the Constitution before the Laws that are repugnant to the Constitution. It also explains that all other department and all person in government are equally bound by the Constitution.

Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429

Pollock reiterates Marbury vs. Madison that when ever you challenge a Law as being unconstitutional the court has a duty to hold it valid or void. It is clear that the duty to do so cannot be declined. This case further shows the complicity or enabling of the courts to conspire against the U.S. Constitution.

United Stated vs. Harriss, 347 US 612

 The First Amendment forbids Congress to abridge the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  In 1954 the Supreme Court would not have allowed the cases now used to oppress redress.


This case shows that even in 2000 the courts understood that the RIGHT TO PETITION of the FIRST AMENDMENT commanded that "Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The only thing the court left out was that the adjective peaceably.


The supremacy if the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification. That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance of the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the supreme law and reject the inferior statute whenever the two conflict.

D.O.C. vs. HELLER, 554 US 570
This case explains the operational clause "Right of the People" and how in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments this clause unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights or rights tat may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. 


If there be any conflict between these two provisions, the one found in the Amendments must control, under the well-understood rule that the last expression of the will of the lawmaker prevails over an earler... .  AN AMENDMENT AMENDS AND VOIDS ANY CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION!


The Constitution where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain evident meaning. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. The people who call the Constitution open to interpretation so they can Rape the intent of our Founding Fathers are complicit and enabling a conspiracy against the U.S. Constitution.

The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. The Ninth Amendment simply shows the intent of the Constitution's authors that other fundamental personal rights should not be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they are not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments.  

Federal courts cannot countenance deliberate violations of basic constitutional rights. To do so would violate their judicial oath to uphold the U.S. Const, 28 U.S.C.S § 453 (1976)

We start with the premise that the rights to assemble peaceably and to petition for a redress of grievances are among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment would, however, be a hollow promise if it left government free to destroy of erode its guarantees by indirect restraints so long as no law is passed that prohibits free speech, press, petition, or assembly as such. We have therefore repeatedly held that laws which actually affect the exercise of these vital rights cannot be sustained merely because they were enacted for the purpose of dealing with some evil within the State's legislative competence, or even because the laws do in fact provide a helpful means of dealing with such an evil.​ 

Work vs. United States Ex Rel. Rives., 267 US 175                                                                      Mandamus issues to compel an officer to perform a purely ministerial duty.The ​Supreme Law of the Land that every Judge takes and oath to defend is more that a ministerial duty. The Judges DUTY is not discretionary. The oath of office he took was first and foremost to defend the integrity of the Constitution. When a Judge is willing to conspire against the U.S. Constitution it is a higher courts Duty to use the Mandamus to compel a Judge to perform a purely ministerial duty he took an oath to God to perform!

Madden vs. Myers, 102 F3d 74

Because a writ of mandamus in neither a "civil action" nor an "appeal," our decision is not controlled by the plain meaning of the text. 

This interpretation alone preserves the writ for prisoners who may have no other relief in a criminal action in which a court has exceeded its judicial power or failed to use its power “where there is a duty to do so.”

Strickland vs. Washington, 466 US 668

Two-part test of effective assistance of defense counsel held (1) reasonably effective assistance and (2) reasonable probability of different result with effective assistance. 

Counsel owes the client a duty of loyalty, a duty to avoid conflicts of interest.