The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.

— National Archives

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the precedent of judicial review. This judicial review power allows the Supreme Court to invalidate or declare unconstitutional actions or laws created by levels of government. The case surrounds the question of whether or not William Marbury’s right to a commission is valid and if he is due a mandamus from the court. The decision of the court also called into question the Judiciary Act of 1789 and if the constitution was superior or not. Given the supremacy clause, the constitution was deemed the supreme law and Marbury’s commission was denied and the case was discharged.

— U.S. Conlawpedia

During President John Adams’ lame duck session of his presidency, he appointed Marbury as a justice of the peace and signed the commission. Soon thereafter, Thomas Jefferson became President of the United States and refused to allow Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court to get his commission via a writ of mandamus.

Under Justice John Marshall, the Court specifically held that the provision in the 1789 Act that granted the Supreme Court the power to issue a writ of mandamus was unconstitutional. On a broader scale, this case established that the Supreme Court had the authority, under the Supremacy Clause and Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, to review legislative or executive acts and find them unconstitutional. The Court also delineated the limits of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, namely, political questions (which are not reviewable by the federal courts) and the limitations set forth by Article III of the Constitution. While Marbury v. Madison established that federal courts have limited jurisdiction, it also cemented the Court’s status as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

— LII > Wex

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

— Chief Justice John Marshall (1803)

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

AS OUR SELF APPOINTED RULERS…YOU WILL PASS WHATEVER IT IS YOU ARE GOING TO PASS. I FOR ONE WILL REFUSE TO COMPLY.

I have the constitution both state and federal on my side. I am on the right side of history with this. You are on the wrong side.

Just because you can make a felon out of the citizenry with the stroke of a pen, does not mean that the people will comply.

Respectfully submitted
John Cinque
Branford, ct

THREE ELEMENTS THAT CAN RENDER COURT RULINGS VACATABLE

1. Existence of inherent fraud.

2. Existence of inherent lack of bona fide jurisdiction.

3. Existence of inherent lack of bona fide due process of bona fide law.

Sources:

• 
  May 28, 2021. “Marbury v. Madison (1803).” National Archives.
  https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison.
  Government.
• 
  “Marbury v. Madison (1803).” U.S. Conlawpedia.
  https://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/marbury-v-madison-1803/.
  University.
• 
  “Marbury v. Madison (1803).” LII / Legal Information Institute.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marbury_v_madison_(1803).
  University.
• 
  John Marshall. “WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.” LII / Legal Information Institute.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137.
  University.

Related:

• 
  “16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 Late 2d, Sec 256:” N-FORMER.
  https://nformer.org/16-am-jur-2d.html.
  General Website Link.
• 
  John Cinque. “John Cinque – Branford CT.”
  https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/John%20Cinque%20-%20Branford%20CT.pdf.
  Government, PDF.
• 
  Carl Miller. “Constitutional Law.”
  http://www.freedomschool.us/constitutional-law-by-carl-miller.pdf.
  PDF.
• 
  Steffen Rowe. “The Most Important Law You Probably Never Heard Of.” UNITED NETWORK NEWS.
  https://www.unn.today/news-1/the-most-important-law-you-probably-never-heard-of.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “Unconstitutional Official Acts.” Constitution Society.
  https://constitution.org/1-Law/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “Three Elements That Can Render Court Rulings Vacatable.” Family Guardian Fellowship.
  https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/ThreeElements.htm.
  General Website Link.

October 1878

Full Definition of fraud

1	a	: DECEIT, TRICKERY specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right was accused of credit card fraud
	b	: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK automobile insurance frauds
2	a	: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR He claimed to be a licensed psychologist, but he turned out to be a fraud. also : one who defrauds : CHEAT
	b	: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be The UFO picture was proved to be a fraud.

— Merriam-Webster

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

— The Free Dictionary

Sources:

• 
  October 1878. UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON. U.S. Supreme Court.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98/61.
  Judgment.
• 
  “Definition of FRAUD.” In Merriam-Webster.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud.
  Reference.
• 
  “Fraud.” In The Free Dictionary.
  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud.
  Reference.

Related:

• 
  “Three Elements That Can Render Court Rulings Vacatable.” Family Guardian Fellowship.
  https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/ThreeElements.htm.
  General Website Link.

See also, on this site:

• The False Claims Act is passed

All I’m saying is that I want people to understand where the law is and so when you hear on mainstream media that under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Constitution gives the government the right to do this, I want people in their minds to understand, that’s not true.

— Attorney Mitch Fine, SGT Report

This is the U.S. Supreme Court case that the liberal media has been publicizing as support for vaccine mandates and the same U.S. Supreme Court case that Jeff Childers successfully used to support his argument against vaccine mandates.

Attorney Mitch Fine has looked at this case and does not believe that the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case applies to the COVID situation.

1. The small pox vaccine at issue in the case was well-established.  The COVID vaccines are still in testing even though they have been declared “approved.”  Long-term safety of the vaccines is still not yet known.  The technology of these so-called vaccines is entirely new.
2. The case ultimately is about the right of a state to legislate vaccine mandates.  The constitution of Massachusetts and its legislated law were taken into consideration in making the Supreme Court ruling.  The current COVID mandates generally have not been legislated.  If your state already has laws against mandatory vaccination, this case should help you to an easy win.
3. Mitch Fine cites “The 4 Part Standard (per Gostin) that Determines the Reasonableness of a Vaccine Mandate”: 1) necessity, 2) reasonable means, 3) proportionality, and 4) harm avoidance.OSHA employees interviewed in a Del Bigtree video also do not seem to believe that the reasonableness standard is met.

While the Court held a $5 fine was reasonable for Henning Jacobson’s refusal of a smallpox vaccine, Jacobson never applied its 4 part standard to a non consensual injection of an experimental “vaccine.”  For this reason, in this site’s section – Common Belief of the People, The Foundation of Jacobson v Massachusetts, this 4 part standard shall be applied to determine the reasonableness of forcibly mandating a novel genetic “vaccine.”

— Attorney Mitch Fine, VaccineLawfare.Com

Sources:

• 
  February 20, 1905. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). U.S. Supreme Court.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/.
  Judgment.
• 
  “JACOBSON V MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905): Constitutional Standard for Vaccine Mandates.” VaccineLawfare.Com.
  https://www.vaccinelawfare.com/jacobson-v-massachusetts.
  Law.
• 
  April 2005. Lawrence O. Gostin. “Jacobson v Massachusetts at 100 Years: Police Power and Civil Liberties in Tension.” American Journal of Public Health 95 (4): 576–81.
  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.055152.
  Research Journal.
  Lawrence O. Gostin is the Director for the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at John Hopkins – A Collaborating Center of the WHO and CDC and author of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act.  The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security was one of the participants in Event 201.
• 
  October 21, 2021. SGT Report with Mitch Fine. LAWFARE: VAXX “MANDATE” IS WARFARE — Mitch Fine. SGT Report. Runtime: 52:58.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/DsrTYDhYxODX/.
  Video.
• 
  May 31, 2022. Del Bigtree and Jefferey Jaxen. CENTURY-OLD RULING AFFECTS VAX MANDATES. The Highwire with Del Bigtree. Runtime: 13:01.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/DAbqqQC0Lx6A/.
  Video.

See also, on this site:

• A case is won against vaccine mandates in Florida
• The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act is presented
• Obama signs the 21 Century Cures Act into law
• Is it illegal for OSHA to enforce vaccine mandates?

The Nuremberg Code (German: Nürnberger Kodex) is part of a judicial ruling.  The Kodex has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association.  In the US, when preparing a legal case, refer to the National Research Act, which is legislation from the US Congress.  The National Research Act implements key provisions from the Nuremberg Code.

Following World War II, tribunals were held in Nuremberg, Germany.  Among those tried were the doctors in the Nazi concentration camps where prisoners were forced to participate in medical experiments.  The ten points of the Nuremberg Code were given in the section of the judges’ verdict against Nazi doctors entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments.”  The following is a summary.

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

For the detailed list, please see this article: Nuremberg Code

Sources:

• 
  United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Nuremberg Code.”
  https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/doctors-trial/nuremberg-code.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “Nuremberg Code.” In Wikipedia.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuremberg_Code.
  Reference.
• 
  November 13, 1997. Evelyne Shuster. “Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code.” New England Journal of Medicine 337 (20): 1436–40.
  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006.
  Research Journal.

Related:

• 
  October 20, 2021. “Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech].” US Food & Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download.
  Food & Drug Administration.
  This document has instructions for healthcare providers who are administering the vaccines.
• 
  October 19, 2005. “Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: UNESCO.” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
  General Website Link.
  Article 3.2: “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”
  And there is more in this document related to the issue at hand, all of which is also being violated in the current crisis.

See also, on this site:

• The National Research Act is signed into law.
• FDA approves Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine
• Federal judge rejects DOD claim that Pfizer EUA and Comirnaty vaccines are ‘interchangeable’

Justice Black is often regarded as a leading defender of First Amendment rights such as the freedom of speech and of the press. He refused to accept the doctrine that the freedom of speech could be curtailed on national security grounds. Thus, in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), he voted to allow newspapers to publish the Pentagon Papers despite the Nixon Administration‘s contention that publication would have security implications. In his concurring opinion, Black stated,

In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. … The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.

— Justice Hugo L. Black, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

— Wikipedia

Sources:

• 
  June 30, 1971. Hugo L. Black. “NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. The WASHINGTON POST COMPANY et al.” LII / Legal Information Institute.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713.
  University.
• 
  June 30, 1971. “New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).” Justia Law.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “New York Times Co. v. United States.” In Wikipedia.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States.
  Reference.
• 
  “Hugo Black.” In Wikipedia.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Black.
  Reference.

This Supreme Court decision allows for the patenting of living organisms, which had been forbidden prior to this decision.

From the filing:

In 1972, respondent [Ananda M.] Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, filed a patent application, assigned to the General Electric Co.  The application asserted 36 claims related to Chakrabarty’s invention of “a bacterium from the genus Pseudomonas containing therein at least two stable energy-generating plasmids, each of said plasmids providing a separate hydrocarbon degradative pathway.”  This human-made, genetically engineered bacterium is capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil.  Because of this property, which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria, Chakrabarty’s invention is believed to have significant value for the treatment of oil spills.

Source:

• 
  June 16, 1980. US Supreme Court. Sidney A. DIAMOND, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Petitioner, v. Ananda M. CHAKRABARTY et al. Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/303.
  University, Judgment.

See also, on this site:

• Report: mRNA “vaccines” are converted to DNA in the liver

Sources:

• • 
    June 13, 2013. Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Legal Information Institute. U.S. Supreme Court.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398.
    University, Judgment.
  • 
    July 9, 2013. Megan Krench. “New Supreme Court Decision Rules That CDNA Is Patentable What It Means for Research and Genetic Testing.” Scientific American.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/new-supreme-court-decision-rules-that-cdna-is-patentablewhat-it-means-for-research-and-genetic-testing/.
    Magazine.
  • 
    January 2014. Jeremy McKinney. “‘It’s a Trap’: CDNA Is Patent Eligible? But Is It Patentable?” Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology 10 (1): 31.
    https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=okjolt.
    University, Law.
  • 
    October 25, 2021. Megan Molteni. “Eight Years after a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on DNA Ownership, Its Ramifications Are Becoming Clearer.” STAT.
    https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/25/jorge-contreras-genome-defense-supreme-court-ruling-dna-ownership/,
    https://sp-foundation.org/news-resources/news-article-archive.html/article/2021/10/29/eight-years-after-a-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-on-dna-ownership-its-ramifications-are-becoming-clearer.
    Research Journal, Magazine.

See also, on this site:

• Attorney updates us on evidence found in a military case
• Report: mRNA “vaccines” are converted to DNA in the liver

In 1986 as part of the NCVIA, HHS was required to submit bi-annual reports detailing actions taken to ensure vaccine safety. This was not done, forcing 78 million USA children into vaccine programs with no safety provisions.

Sources:

• 
  “Stipulated Order Showing That NIH And HRSA Have Not Acted In Their Duties Regarding Vaccine Safety.” ICAN – Informed Consent Action Network.
  https://www.icandecide.org/ican_lawsuits/stipulated-order-showing-that-nih-and-hrsa-have-not-acted-in-their-duties-regarding-vaccine-safety/.
  Activist.
• 
  June 4, 2018. Stipulation: INFORMED CONSENT ACTION NETWORK vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, and HEALTH RESOURCES & SERVICES ADMINISTRATION. Case 1:18-cv-02000-PAC Document 13. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
  https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/013-STIPULATION.pdf.
  Judgment, PDF.

See also, on this site:

• National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (USA)

The PCR tests were found to be false measures.

Sources:

• 
  November 11, 2020. Acórdão do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa: HABEAS CORPUS INTERESSE EM AGIR SARS-COV-2 TESTES RT-PCR PRIVAÇÃO DA LIBERDADE DETENÇÃO ILEGAL. 1783/20.7T8PDL.L1-3. Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa.
  http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30.
  Judgment.
• 
  November 17, 2020. Pete Bianco. “Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR Tests Unreliable.” Utica Phoenix.
  https://www.uticaphoenix.net/2020/11/17/portuguese-appeals-court-deems-pcr-tests-unreliable/.
  News.

The PCR tests were found to be false measures.

Source:

• 
  April 1, 2021. “Vienna Administrative Court: Corona Policy Without Basis, PCR Test Inappropriate.” Europe Reloaded.
  https://www.europereloaded.com/vienna-administrative-court-corona-policy-without-basis-pcr-test-inappropriate/.
  News.
• 
  March 24, 2021, Verwaltungsgericht Wien: GZ: VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2.
  http://verwaltungsgericht.wien.gv.at/Content.Node/rechtsprechung/103-048-3227-2021.pdf.
  Judgment, PDF.
  Court document. The part about the PCR tests begins in the last paragraph of page 8.