It’s high time I posted to my site the petition for a writ of certiorari that I submitted to the United States Supreme Court last year. It has often been taught in schools that judges in the United States have the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution, and that their opinions should hold the weight of law.
In my case, District Court judge Denise M. Porter lied to me by telling me that she was “bound to follow the precedent” rather than allow constitutional challenges of law to be heard and decided by a jury, or to allow a jury to hear a criminal case like mine at all.
Here’s what my research actually uncovered:
1) Judicial opinions are not law: binding precedent has no constitutional authorization.
Binding precedent is the lethal force behind Roe v. Wade and state analogues that have killed at least 100 million unborn children. Article III grants courts judgment in cases, not lawmaking power. Marbury v. Madison erred by deciding outside the res judicata after jurisdiction failed, and Cooper v. Aaron completed the usurpation by falsely declaring Supreme Court interpretations to be “supreme law of the land.” Article VI makes the Constitution supreme, not judicial interpretations. Courts may publish opinions, but opinions bind no one beyond the parties to a case. Contrary to the claims of Hutto v. Davis, Stare decisis (Latin for “let the decision stand”, the doctrine behind binding precedent) is merely doctrine; it does not follow from court structure because lower courts and juries can choose to acquit or rule more favorably, eliminating the path for appeal. Therefore it cannot be true that lower courts must be bound to carbon copy the decisions of higher courts merely because an appellate hierarchy exists. Binding precedent violates oaths to support and defend the Constitution.
2) Stare decisis and the “presumption of constitutionality” invert popular sovereignty.
These illegitimate doctrines shift the burden of proof from government to citizen, allowing unconstitutional acts to persist by inertia rather than justification. Errors compound across generations because courts obey precedent instead of the Constitution itself. “Presumption of constitutionality” is invoked by prosecutors to presume the acts of the legislature to be constitutional, completely erasing checks and balances and the separation of powers. This contradicts the presumption of innocence and the right of a jury to decide matters of law and fact and to nullify unconstitutional laws, which is the true pattern for nullification. Without juries deciding all criminal verdicts, judicial review is practically nonexistent.
3) Rights are systematically denied by relabeling, which the Constitution forbids.
Government may not evade trial by jury or other due process protections by changing labels (criminal / civil / administrative / infraction etc.). Substance governs over form by virtue of guarantees on rights and the limited enumeration of powers. Government entities cannot be plaintiffs in civil controversies by definition. There is no such thing as an Article I Court.
4) Judicial discretion to refuse cases where jurisdiction exists violates constitutional duty.
Once jurisdiction attaches, courts must decide the case. Cohens v, Virginia held that “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” There can be no such thing as discretionary jurisdiction per the Constitution itself, making the 1925 Judiciary Act null and void.
5) Trial by jury has been functionally erased without amendment.
Civil and criminal jury trials now occur in about 1% of cases, down from 100% just over a century ago, due to plea bargaining, administrative diversion, and “minor offense” doctrines, not constitutional change—eliminating the jury as the people’s primary check on the power of all three traditional branches of government. Plea deals violate the 5th and 8th Amendments by extorting defendants to witness against themselves on the threat of excessive statutory punishments. The purpose of plea deals is to kill the jury and reverse the burden of proof. The end result is a police state that never has to prove anything and has unlimited prosecutorial power.
6) The modern administrative state and “police power” regimes are entirely fictitious judicial fabrications.
Neither federal nor state constitutions grant general police powers nor do they authorize agencies exercising combined legislative, executive, and judicial authority. Cases like Jacobson v. Massachusetts (which upheld a vaccine mandate) assume such power by assertion, not enumeration. The deception was wrought through a careful misquote of Federalist No. 45, stating that the powers of states are “numerous and indefinite”. Indefinite does not mean unlimited; it only means they are not defined in the federal Constitution. States are required to hold themselves to their constitutionally enumerated powers the same as the federal government. This is the true meaning of federalism and the 10th Amendment.
7) Congress had already attempted to redefine marriage in the mid 1800s during the rise of the modern two-party system, at the behest of the Republican Party and its quest to eradicate Biblical marriage. Evidentiary standards were altered; an entire religious sect was banned from serving on juries in the trials of their own peers, and defendants were convicted over mere rumors and forcibly separated from their families, violating bill of attainder and ex post facto prohibitions. This complete obliteration of Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment and other due process and structural guarantees proves the maxim that if you allow government to trample on First Amendment guarantees of religious freedoms, all of the other rights will fall like dominoes. The religion’s founder was murdered over allegations of plural marriage, which neither state nor federal governments have authority to redefine nor forbid, marriage being a religious rite.
Below you can read my petition as submitted to the Supreme Court to unpack more details and explanation of these findings, or watch or listen to a video of me reading it:
Leave a Reply