Memorandum of Law

"Before there were intelligent beings, they were possible; they had therefore possible relations, and
consequently possible laws. Before laws were made, there were relations of possible justice. To say that
there is nothing just or unjust, but what is commanded or forbidden by positive laws, is the same as
saying that, before the describing of a circle, all the radii were not equal."
-Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, in "The Spirit of the Laws"

The Spirit of the Laws

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/montesquieu-complete-works-vol-1-the-spirit-of-laws

Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia

http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/jefferson/jefferson.html

Mandamus is Law
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007)

Latin Religio meaning:

"reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety"

Latin Opinari meaning:

"to have an opinion or "to think."

Election Latin Root

late 13c., from Anglo-French eleccioun, Old French elecion "choice, election, selection" (12c.), from
Latin electionem (nominative electio), noun of action from past participle stem of eligere

Select Latin Root

Latin sēlēctus (past participle of sēligere to gather apart), equivalent to sē- se- + leg(ere) to gather,
choose + -tus past participle suffix

Pro se legal representation (/ˌproʊ ˈsiː/ or /ˌproʊ ˈseɪ/) comes from Latin, literally meaning "on behalf
of themselves", which basically means advocating on one's own behalf before a court, rather than being
represented by a lawyer.

The Latin “prosequi” meant “to follow after, accompany, chase, pursue, attack, assail, or abuse.” It is
composed of the prefix “pro” meaning “forward” and “sequi,” meaning “follow,” in the same sense as
“sequel.” In its most literal sense, prosequi means, “follow forward.” In Latin, prosequi was usually
used in two ways: literally to mean “follow a path” or figuratively to mean “follow a course of action.”
The past participle of prosequi is “prosecutus.” Prosequi became a Latin agent noun “prosecutor” in
medieval times. Prosecutus became “prosecute” in the early 15th century, usually meaning “to go into
detail.” The first recorded use of the word to mean “bring to a court of law” is in the 1570s. At this
time, the person who brought a case in a court of law was a “promoter.” Prosecutor, in turn, acquired
its modern meaning in the 1620s.

"Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils"

-Roger Williams, President of the Colony of Rhode Island

The Federalist Papers, No. 10 & 51:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

To Alexander Hamilton from William C. Bentley, 4 October 1799

From William C. Bentley
"Richmond [Virginia] October 4, 1799. “A few days before my arival at this place, some of the Troops
of the Regimt. of Artillerists & Engineers, of Capt. Eddins’s1 Company, stationed at this place, were
guilty of a most violent and flagrant breach of Civil Authority; the Circumstances were these; One of
their new recruits was discovered to be a fugitive from justice, he had been committed to a County
Court jail for Horse-stealing, which he broke and fled from. The Shff of that County discouvering him
among the Soldiers in Town, had him apprehended under a Warrant from a Magistrate of this City, and
which in possession of the Sheriff, he was rescued by Six or Seven of Eddins’s Soldiers, and Suffered
to make his escape.2 This has afforded another opportunity for the Jacobines Printers to sport with the
Standing Army, as they call it; The paper of this place, called the Examiner3 of which, that Scotch
Fugitive Callender,4 has the direction, has detailed the circumstances to the public, rather highly
coloured, and has called on all his Yoke Mates, (using his own Words) to notice it in their papers.…” "

The Volstead Act (1920)

Officially titled the National Prohibition Act
"Nothing in this title shall be held to apply to the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation,
possession, or distribution of wine for sacramental purposes, or like religious rites"

ULTRA VIRES;
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v.
Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012)

Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, Nos. 03-71366, 03-71693 (2004)

"We have previously held that the definition of “THC” in Schedule I refers only to synthetic THC, and
that any THC occurring naturally within Cannabis is banned only if it falls within the Schedule I
definition of “marijuana.”...We reiterate that ruling here: in accordance with Schedule I, the DEA's
relevant rules and regulations may be enforced only insofar as they ban the presence of marijuana or
synthetic THC."

Glasser v. United States 315 U.S. 60 (1942)

Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969)
Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942)
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223-24 (1967)
Miranda Juarez v. DOJ/DEA, 07-5064 (DC Cir 2008)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1979)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 522 F. Supp. 140 (N.D. Ill. 1981)
United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)
Craker v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 09-1220 (1st Cir. 2013)
Nevada v. Hicks,533 U.S. 353 (2001)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5 (1925)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Gonzales v. O Centro, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
Washington v. Sessions, et al 1:17-cv-05625
Gallagher v. DEA et al 3:2017cv00734
In re: RYAN GALLAGHER 18-10407
Gallagher v. Rosenberg et al 1:16-cv-01117
Olsen V DEA 878 F.2d 1458, 279 D.C. 1, 58 USLW 2023
United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232 (D. Colo. 1992)
Normaco v. DEA, 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah,508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920)
Randall v. Wyrick, 441 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Mo. 1977)
MM Steel, LP v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. et al, No. 4:2012cv01227 - Document 504 (S.D. Tex.
2014)
Tunica Web Advertising v. TUNICA CASINO OPERATORS, 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007)
Spectators’ Comm. Network, Inc. v. Colonial Country Club, et al., 253 F.3d 215 (5 th Cir. 2001)
NW Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery 472 U.S. 284 (1985)
Norman Bridge Drug Company, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Michael Banner, John R. Bartels, Jr.,
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, et al., Defendants-appellants, 529 F.2d 822 (5th Cir.
1976)
Mellouli v. Lynch 575 U.S. _ (2015)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church, 210 U.S. 296 (1908)
COLE DRUG COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. CITY OF BOSTON 326 Mass. 199 (1950)
United States v. Johnson,221 U.S. 488 (1911)
United States v. Morgan,222 U.S. 274 (1911)
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, 241 U.S. 265 (1916)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States,476 U.S. 227 (1986)
Dalehite v. United States,346 U.S. 15 (1953)
indell v. Abbott Laboratories L.A. No. 31063. Supreme Court of California. March 20, 1980
Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904)
United States v. Mottolo, 695 F. Supp. 615 (D.N.H. 1988)
Jelen and Son, Inc. v. Bandimere 801 P.2d 1182 (1990)
People v. Noland 739 P.2d 906 (1987)
United States v. Ishmael, 843 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Tex. 1994)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
People v. Phillips (1813)
New York v. Phillips (N.Y.Ct.Gen.Sess.1813)
People v. Smith (N.Y. 1817)
New York v. Smith, 2 City Hall Recorder 77 (1817)
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 (1980)
Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 727, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871)
New Jersey v. Szemple, 622A.2d248,249 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1993)
Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church, Inc., 124 Ohio App.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Dist.1997)
Totten v. UnitedStates, 92 U.S.105,107 (1875)
In re: Ver-plank,329 F.Supp 433,435 (C.D.Cal1971)
United States v. Keeney, 111 F.Supp 233,234 (D.D.C.1953)
Louisiana v. Mayer, 589 So.2d 1145,1148 (La.Ct.App.1991)
Bonds v. Arkansas, 837 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Ark.1992)
Easley v. Texas, 837 S.W.2d 854, 856 (Tex.Ct.App.1992)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (1784)
Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976)
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)
Africa v. Commonwealth, 662 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir. 1981)
MAYFIELD v. TDCJ No. 06-50490 (2008)
United States of America v. Jeff Fort, Appellant, 409 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
United States of America v. Jeff Fort, Appellant, 443 F.2d 670 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
United States v. Fort, 921 F. Supp. 523 (N.D. Ill. 1996)
NATIONAL MOBILIZATION COM. TO END WAR IN VIET NAM v. Foran, 297 F. Supp. 1 (N.D.
Ill. 1968)
Hoffman v. United States, 256 A.2d 567 (1969)
Abbie Hoffman, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 445 F.2d 226 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Americans United v. PRISON FELLOWSHIP, 555 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Iowa 2008)
Davis v. Austin, 492 F. Supp. 273 (N.D. Ga. 1980)
State v. Olson 449 N.W.2d 251 (1989)
Stovall v. Bennett, 471 F. Supp. 1286 (M.D. Ala. 1979)
Lipp v. Procunier, 395 F. Supp. 871 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
The Antelope, 24 U.S. 413 (1826)
United States v. The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841)
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972)
Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen,244 U.S. 205 (1917)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Largent v. Texas 318 U.S. 418 (1943)
Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853)
The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871)
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898)
Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924)
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)
Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)
American Library Association v. Pataki. 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361
(N.D. Cal. 1995)
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006)
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)
Elfbrandt v. Russell 97 Ariz. 140 (1964)
Russo v. Byrne, 409 U.S. 1219 (1972)
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co.,118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Griswild v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947)
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935)
People v. Newton (1970)
Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992)
United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000).
Uttecht v. Brown 551 U.S. 1 (2007)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965)
Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966)
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
Gonzales v. Beto, 405 U.S. 1052 (1972)
Skilling v. U.S., 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d510 (1965)
Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.)
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 447 (1999)
Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 7 (1999)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 741 (1999)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 818 (1999)
Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U.S. 449, 453 (1999)
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 397 (1999)
United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 392 (1999)
INS v. Aguirre 526 U.S. 415, 424 (1999)
California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 766 (1999)
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Tribe, 526 U.S. 865, 873 (1999)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 21 (1999)
Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U.S. 526, 539 (1999)
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 234 (1999)
National Aeronautics and Space Admin. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 527 U.S. 229, 235
(1999)
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 487 (1999)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)
New Hampshire v. Maine,532 U.S. 742 (2001)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579 (1943)
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953)
Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997)
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958)
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
Erno Nussenzweig v. Philip-Lorca diCorcia (2007)
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964)
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973)
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943)
Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment 444 U.S. 620 (1980)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
Ketchum v. Cruz, 775 F. Supp. 1399 (D. Colo. 1991)
Yadon v. Southward, 64 P. 3d 909 (2002)
Villa v. Colorado DOC, No. 16-1308 (10th Cir. 2016)
Draper v. Washington, 372 US 487 (1963)
Hardin v. Straub, 490 US536 (1989)
Sause v. Bauer, 585 US _ (2018)
Collins v. Kansas, 174 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Kan, 2001)
Coppedge v. US, 369 US 438 (1962)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
US v. Dewitt, 76 US 41 (1869)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883)
Employer Liablity Cases, 207 US 463 (1908)
El Paso v. Gutierrez, 215 US 87 (1909)
Muskrat v. US, 219 US 346 (1911)
Turner v. US, 396 US 398 (1970)
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 US 251 (1918)
Carter v. Carter Coal, 298 US 238 (1936)
US v. Darby, 312 US 100 (1941)
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
Child Labor Tax Case, 259 US 20 (1922)
US v. Constantine, 296 US 287 (1935)
US v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936)
Rickert Rice v. Fontenot, 297 US 110 (1936)
Rubin v. Coors, 514 US 476 (1995)
Boos v. Barry, 485 US 312 (1988)
US v. Cardiff, 344 US 174 (1952)
Tot v. US, 319 US 463 (1943)
Capitol Police v. Jeanette Brigade, 409 US 972 (1972)
Toth v. Quarels, 350 US 11 (1955)
Blount v. Rizzi, 400 US 410 (1971)
US v. Robel, 389 US 258 (1967)
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 US 500 (1964)
Albertson v. SACB, 382 US 70 (1965)
Haynes v. US, 390 US 85 (1968)
Schacht v. US, 398 US 58 (1970)
US v. Romano, 382 US 136 (1965)
Regan v. Time, 468 US 641 (1984)
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 US 112 (1970)
Feltner v. Columbia, 523 US 340 (1998)
Johnson v. US, 576 US _(2015)
US v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990)
Hosanna Tabor v. Equal Employment, 565 US _ (2012)
US v. United Foods, 533 US 405 (2001)
US v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)
Printz v. US, 521 US 898 (1997)
US v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000)
Agency for Int'l Dev v. All for Open Soc'y Int'l, 570 US _ (2013)
Chapman v. California 386 U.S. 18 (1967)
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960)
American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971)
Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 703 (1986)
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890)
Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U.S. 1, 137 (1961)
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)
Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829, 834, n. 2 (1989)
Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 248 (1990)
Grand Rapids School Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 389 (1985)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 56 (1985)
Epperson v. Arkansas,393 U.S. 97, 106-107 (1968)
School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963)
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).
Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 272-273 (1951)
Walz v. Tax Comm'n of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 696 (1970)
Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 452 (1971)
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church 393 U.S. 440 (1969)
Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952)
Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No 12 V City of Newark 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999)
Native American Church of Navajo Land, inc. v. Arizona corp. 405 U.S. 901 (1972)
Sossamon v. Texas 563 U.S. ___ (2011)
Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
Church of the Holy Light of the Queen V Mukasey 615 F.Supp.2d 1210 (2009)
Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich 426 U.S. 696 (1976)
Entick v. Carrington. 19 Howell's State Trials 1029 (1765)
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 682, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-179, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1741-1742, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984)
Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 316, 91 S.Ct. 381, 385, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 601, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1387, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984)
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 30, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1628, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, 213 (1986)
Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626 (1951)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___ (2011)
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952)
People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (1926)
mos v. United States,255 U.S. 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266, 267—268, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921)
United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 1043, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941)
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914
)Soldal V Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States 251 U.S. 385 (1920)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974)
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534(1961)
Mitchell v. United States 313 U.S. 80 (1941)
Coffin V United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
United States v. Levering, 431 F.3d 289, 294 (8th Cir.2005)
United States v. Reyes–Solano, 543 F.3d 474, 487 (8th Cir.2008)
Cuyler v. Sullivan 446 U.S. 335 (1980)
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978)
Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
Georgia v. Brailsford 2 U.S. 415 (1793)
Hoyt v. Florida 368 U.S. 57 (1961)
Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986)
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961)
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970)
F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412 (1920)
Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 68 (1968)
Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89 (1965)
SEABOARD AIR LINE v. HORTON, 239 U.S. 595 (1916)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 708 (1884)
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 537 (1884)
Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 (1879)
Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 255 (1907)
Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660, 668 (1890)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)
Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996)
In re Winship 397 U.S. 358 (1970
)Sheppard v. Maxwell 384 U.S. 333 (1966)
Jackson v. Virginia 443 U.S. 307 (1979)
Cage v. Louisiana 498 U.S. 39 (1990)
Victor v. Nebraska 511 U.S. 1 (1994)
Ex Parte Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
North Carolina v. Pearce 395 U.S. 711 (1969)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla 542 U.S. 426 (2004)
Granholm v. Heald 544 U.S. 460 (2005)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984)
Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 125 U.S. 465 (1888)
State v. Certain Appurtenances used in sale of intoxicating liquors 1915 OK 309 (1915)
United States of America, Appellee, v. Mario Biaggi, Stanley Simon, Richard Biaggi, Peter Neglia,john
Mariotta, and Bernard Ehrlich, Defendants-appellants, 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990)

USC Title 42 Chapter 20A- Civil Rights Commission

USC Title 42 Chapter 21A- Privacy Protection
USC Title 42 Chapter 21B- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
USC Title 42 Chapter 21C- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
USC Title 42 Chapter 21E- Privacy and Civil Rights Protection & Oversight
USC Title 42 Chapter 21, Subchapter IX- Miscellaneous Provisions
USC Title 42 Chapter 46- Justice System Improvement
USC Title 42 Chapter 42- Narcotic Addiction Rehab
USC Title 42 Chapter 60- Alcoholism Prevention
USC Title 42 Chapter 106- Community Services Block Grant Program
USC Title 42 Chapter 113- State Justice Institute
USC Title 42 Chapter 117- Encouraging Good Faith Professional Review Activities
USC Title 42 Chapter 123- Drug Abuse Education & Prevention
USC Title 42 Chapter 139- Volunteer Protection

Title 28 USC 144- Bias or Prejudice of Judge

Title 28 USC 351- Complaints; Judge Defined
Title 28 USC 455- Disqualification of Justice, Judge or Magistrate
Title 18 USC 242- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Title 18 USC 241- Conspiracy Against Rights
Title 18 USC 245- Federally Protected Activities
Title 18 USC 246- Deprivation of Relief Benefits
Title 42 USC 1985- Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
Title 18 USC 372- Conspiracy to Impede or Injure Officer
Title 18 USC 402- Contempts Constituting Crimes
Title 18 USC 552- Officers Aiding in Importation of Treasonous Articles
Title 18 USC 1964- Civil Remedies
Title 42 USC 1986- Action for Neglecting to Prevent
Title 42 USC 1987- Prosecution of Violation of Certain Laws
Title 42 USC 1989- US Magistrates; Appointment of Persons to Execute Warrants
Title 42 USC 1990- Marshal to Obey Precepts; Refusing to receive or Execute Process
Title 42 USC 1991- Fees; Persons appointed to Execute Process
Title 42 USC 1994- Peonage Abolished
Title 42 USC 1995- Criminal Contempt Proceedings; Penalties; Trial by Jury
Title 42 USC 1996- Protection and Preservation of Traditional Religions of Native Americans
Title 42 USC 1996a- Traditional Indian use of Peyote
Title 18 USC 3525- Victim Compensation Fund
Title 34 USC Chapter 201- Victim Rights, Compensation and Assistance

USC Title 18 Chapter 33- Emblems, Insignia & Names

USC Title 18 Chapter 37- Espionage & Censorship
USC Title 18 Chapter 39- Explosives & Other Dangerous Articles
USC Title 18 Chapter 40- Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosives
USC Title 18 Chapter 44- Firearms
USC Title 18 Chapter 45- Foreign Relations
USC Title 18 Chapter 46- Forfeiture
USC Title 18 Chapter 65- Malicious Mischief
USC Title 18 Chapter 73- Obstruction of Justice
USC Title 18 Chapter 90- Protection of Trade Secrets
USC Title 18 Chapter 93- Public Officers and Employees
USC Title 18 Chapter 95- Racketeering
USC Title 18 Chapter 96- RICO
USC Title 18 Chapter 97- Land, Air, Water, Rail Transport
USC Title 18 Chapter 101- Records and Reports
USC Title 18 Chapter 109- Searches and Seizures
USC Title 18 Chapter 120- ECPA
USC Title 18 Chapter 121- Stored Wire and Electronic Communications
USC Title 18 Chapter 123- Prohibition on release of certain State Motor Vehicle Records
USC Title 18 Chapter 203- Arrest and Commitment
USC Title 18 Chapter 206- Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices
USC Title 18 Chapter 211- Jurisdiction and Venue
USC Title 18 Chapter 213- Limitations
USC Title 18 Chapter 233- Contempts

USC Title 1- General Provisions

USC Title 2- The Congress
USC Title 5, Appendix 5a- Federal Advisory Committee Act
USC Title 9- Arbitration
USC Title 21- Food & Drugs
USC Title 22- Foreign Relations and Intercourse
USC Title 24- Hospitals and Asylums
USC Title 27- Intoxicating Liquors
USC Title 28- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
USC Title 34- Crime Control and Law Enforcement
USC Title 43- Public Lands
USC Title 47- Telecommunications
USC Title 49- Transportation

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Doctrine of Commanding Precedent
Overbreadth Doctrine
Exhaustion of Remedies Doctrine
Presumption of Innocence
Reasonable Doubt
Standard of Review
Supremacy Clause
Due Process Clause
Assistance of Counsel Clause
Impartial Jury Clause
Compulsory Clause
Compulsory Process Clause
Vesting Clauses
Case or Controversy Clause
Benefit of Assumption
Burden of Proof

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm
Article 18

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp.
(No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b3ccpr.htm
Article 18

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or
Belief, G.A. res. 36/55, 36 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 171, U.N. Doc. A/36/684 (1981).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/d4deidrb.htm
Article 1, Article 2, Article 4, Article 6 (definitely pay attention to sections C & H), Article 7

Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (1986)

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/FreedomReligionIndex.aspx
Mandate

Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session, 1993). Compilation
of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N.
Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 35 (1994).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/gencomm/hrcom22.htm
2, 3, 4

Maxims

"The Conclusion as to the use of a thing from its abuse is invalid"

"Blessed is the exposition by which anything is saved from destruction"

"Intention is the soul of an instrument"

"The cause of the church is equal to public causes;and for the best reasons"

"An argument from a like case avails in law"

"No one is to be judged without being heard" Hear the other side

"Causes of dower, life, liberty, revenue, are among the favorable things in law"

"An argument from things frequently happening is common in law"

"An argument from division is most powerful in law"

"A good judge decides according to justice and right, and prefers equity to strict law"

"The argument from the greater to the lesser is of no force negatively, postively it is"

"Every kind of action proceeds in its own way"

"Abundant caution does no injury"

"The accessory right does not lead, but follows its principle"

"The action has not accrued within six years"

"A personal right of act dies with a person" this is why rich people make Trust funds for their kids,
because the trust fund can act as a person to hold the money when they are no longer alive to do it
themselves.

"When the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is acquitted"

"External actions show internal secrets" this goes further to say that if someone is abusing an Authority
given to them by law, they are Trespassers in the Law.

"The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff"

"An act of law shall prejudice no man"

"The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with guilty intent"

""It is the duty of the Justice to administer justice to everyone seeking it from them"

"To questions of fact a judge does not answer, to questions of law the jury do not answer"

"Equity follows law"

"That which is equal and good is the law of laws"

"It is one thing to possess, another to be in possession"

"A tree is so called while growing, but wood once it ceases to grow"