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?

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.

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

The Sixth Circuit, in a 2-1 split decision, granted Joe Biden’s motion to dissolve the OSHA Mandate injunction ordered by the Fifth Circuit. Since I’ve already done a bunch of legal analysis for you this week (a snoozer of a post for many readers), I won’t do that to you again. But I’ll make two comments and then explain where it goes next.

First, I’ve noticed you can always tell the court opinions that are going to support the mandates because they ALWAYS uncritically mention the official number of Covid “deaths” in the very first sentence. In this decision, the court said “The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across America, leading to the loss of over 800,000 lives, shutting down workplaces and jobs across the country, and threatening our economy.”

There you go. A dead giveaway the order is going to be a stinker.

The second point is Judge Larson, writing in dissent, pointed out that the majority’s core rationale was completely made up:

“The majority opinion describes the emergency rule at issue here as permitting employers ‘to determine for themselves how best to minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19 in their workplaces.’ Maj. Op. at 7. With respect, that was the state of federal law /before/ the rule, not after.

Biden’s mandate lets employers determine for themselves? Please.

So what’s next? The plaintiff states must choose to ask the Sixth Circuit to hear the injunction issue “en banc,” which means ALL judges on the Sixth have to weigh in, or take it straight to the Supreme Court. I like their chances either way. UPDATE: late-breaking twitter reports say the appeal to the Supreme Court has already been made.

People have asked me, “but Jeff, the Supreme Court has been refusing to hear vaccine cases right and left. Why would you be optimistic about this case?”

The answer is simple. The previous cases have asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on STATE law mandates. As we know, the 1905 Jacobson Supreme Court case says vaccine mandates are a matter of STATE LAW. The primacy of state law is a conservative concept — of federalism. So, the Supreme Court has been consistent so far in staying out of state affairs. But the OSHA Mandate is a FEDERAL issue, and also an issue of over-reaching agency powers, of which the Supreme Court has been skeptical for the last couple decades, at least.

So, don’t worry. While there are no guarantees in this business, I think reason and logic and the facts all support a favorable decision from the US Supreme Court. The war goes on.

Source:

• 
  December 18, 2021. Jeff Childers. “ Coffee & Covid ☙ Saturday, December 18, 2021 ☙ BOING BOING .” Coffee & Covid .
  https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-saturday-december-1b8.
  Law, Blog.

I bet you think I’m going to talk all about the Supreme Court oral arguments yesterday, but I’m not. That story has been over-covered anyway. Who cares?

Haha, just kidding! I’ll briefly explain everything non-lawyers need to know about the arguments and give you my prognostications (for what they’re worth). All you need to know in one (kind of) short post.

…

It must also have been extremely vexing for those of you who listened in NOT to have heard mention of a lot of critical information that is VERY significant, like, um, the lack of severity of OMICRON? Or not hearing any of the States’ lawyers pushing back on the ill-informed liberal Justices’ factual claims. Or hearing the Justices talking over each other, which happened a lot toward the beginning of the arguments.

I’ll explain each of those phenomena for you. They don’t mean what you think they mean. It’s all good.

— Jeff Childers

Jeff Childers’ entire January 8 post was devoted to the Supreme Court oral arguments.  So just go to the blog post to see what he said about it.  It’s highly recommended, and you might feel better about the situation for having done so.

Sources:

• 
  January 7, 2022. “NFIB v. OSHA, Ohio v. OSHA.” Oral arguments 21A244, 21A247. United States of America: Supreme Court.
  https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/21a244_kifl.pdf.
  Judgment, PDF.
• 
  January 8, 2022. Jeff Childers. “ Coffee & Covid ☙ Saturday, January 8, 2022 ☙ ORAL ARGUMENTS .” Coffee & Covid 2021 .
  https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-saturday-january-2be.
  Law, Blog.

The nation’s top court dramatically clawed back power from federal regulators in a tectonic ruling Friday that KO’d decades of precedent and could affect everything from the environment to AI and healthcare.

— New York Post

“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

— The Gateway Pundit

However, Roberts sought to prevent the decision from impacting prior cases that were decided based on Chevron deference.

“We do not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework,” he wrote. “The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”

— The Hill

“The Chevron Doctrine reversal, which was the landmark decision, I think from this term, got rid of the ability of federal regulators to do what they thought they wanted to do rather than what Congress gave them the power to do.”

— Dr. Peter McCullough

Sources:

• 
  January 17, 2024. Jason Millman. “How a SCOTUS Challenge over Federal Power Could Affect Health Care.” Axios.
  https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/supreme-court-chevron-deference-medicare-medicaid.
  General Website Link.
• 
  June 28, 2024. John Roberts. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Supreme Court of the United States.
  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf.
  Judgment, PDF.
• 
  June 28, 2024. Jim Hᴏft. “BREAKING: Chevron Is Gone — SCOTUS Rules Unelected Bureaucrats Do Not Have the Power to Create Laws.” The Gateway Pundit.
  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/breaking-chevron-is-gone-scotus-rules-unelected-bureaucrats/.
  News.
• 
  June 28, 2024. Ryan King. “Supreme Court Smashes Power of the Administrative State in Historic Chevron Case.” New York Post.
  https://nypost.com/2024/06/28/us-news/supreme-court-scraps-chevron-precedent-striping-federal-regulators-of-power/.
  News.
• 
  June 28, 2024. Rachel Frazin and Zach Schonfeld. “Supreme Court Takes Sledgehammer to Federal Agency Power in Chevron Case.” The Hill.
  https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4745680-supreme-court-chevron-case/.
  News.
• 
  June 30, 2024. Ilya Shapiro. “Supreme Court’s Chevron Ruling Forces Congress to Do Its Job.” New York Post.
  https://nypost.com/2024/06/30/opinion/supreme-courts-chevron-ruling-forces-congress-to-do-its-job/.
  News.
• 
  July 6, 2024. Jessica Glenza. “Chevron Doctrine Ruling a ‘Gut-Punch’ for US Health and Environment – Experts.” The Guardian, sec. US news.
  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/06/chevron-doctrine-supreme-court-ruling.
  News.
• 
  July 12, 2024. John Solomon with Peter A. McCullough. “Dr. Peter McCullough Says SCOTUS Overturning Chevron Doctrine Impacts Public Health.” Just The News. Runtime of embedded video: 1:34.
  https://justthenews.com/videos/dr-peter-mccullough-says-scotus-overturning-chevron-doctrine-impacts-public-health.
  Video.
• 
  July 13, 2024. BOMBSHELL!!!! Med Beds Approved? The Supreme Court’s Quiet Decision! BOOOM!!!! MedeeaGreere. Runtime: 4:26.
  https://rumble.com/v56tb11-bombshell-med-beds-approved-the-supreme-courts-quiet-decision.html.
  Video.