How does one look up a court case? When coming upon an "opinion" of the Court, merely read between the numbers. Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137, for example, the 'US' denotes a US Supreme Court opinion. The first set of numbers represents volume, the second set represents the page of the volume. In other words, the Marbury v. Madison case is located in the fifth volume (5) of the published United States (US) Supreme Court opinions, on page one-thirty-seven (137).

Supreme Court opinions have three primary points: 1)the decision, 2)majority opinion and 3)dissenting opinion. The decision is merely what the court decided for that particular case. The majority opinion is how the majority of the justices voted and the logic, reasoning and case law [similar rulings of previous courts] which they used to reach that decision. The dissenting opinion is the reasoning of the justices who did not agree with the majority and why the believed the final decision is unjust. The arguments in the dissenting opinion are given by the justices in hopes that next time a similar case comes before the court, these arguments will be used [and expanded] to help overturn the prior case. U.S. Supreme Court opinions trump all other court opinions.

When readers come across abbreviations of a State in between such numbers, as in Tibets v. Olson 91 Fla 824, they represent state supreme court cases. Everything listed above regarding US supreme court opinions applies to state supreme court opinions. [The first set of numbers always represents volume, the second set always represent the page of the volume.]

A "F2d" ("F" = federal, "2d" = second) and a "F Supp" (Federal Supplement) between the numbers is a federal court decision -- Pike v. United States 340 F2d 487. [Once again, the first set of numbers always represents volume, the second set represent the page of the volume.] All court cases are in books which are tan in color.

"Am. Jur. 2nd" is short for American Jurisprudence -- a fancy way to say "American legal philosophy." It's a volume of light-green books composing an ‘encyclopedia' of court opinions/legal arguments to help direct judges in their own opinions. 16 Am Jur 2nd 255, signifies pulling out the 16th Volume of this book and then turning to page 255. Nothing to it.

This concept also applies with a reddish-brown volume of books called the United State Code (U.S.C.); and United State Code Service (U.S.C.S.), black. [I highly recommend that on one's first visit to the law library, that individual take out 16 American Jurisprudence -- Constitutional Law -- and sample sections 1-300. You'll be astounded by it's contents.]

How does one determine the validity of a case? By Looking it up in a volume of red books called Shepard's Citations. The first set of numbers always represents volume, the second set represent the section of the volume [repetition is the mother of skill]. Shepard's is located next to their respective court opinions.

The number of decisions listed under the case you are looking at represents how many times the case has been argued and upheld. The larger the number of decisions, the more it's been upheld and, thus, the greater it's potency. At the beginning of these volumes is a chart showing what the letters to the left of a case signify. As one will see an 'O' to the left of the decision represents that the case has been overturned. If one looks in the Shepard's containing the 5th volume of Supreme Court decisions and turn to the case starting at Sec. 137. This is Marbury v. Madison and all those decisions backing it up represent nine pages. It has stood for just under 200 years. Notice that there are no O's thus is one of the most potent cases one can integrate in their defense.

Words spoken in everyday language usually have a different legal meaning then most are familiar with. Black's Law Dictionary solves that dilemma. The definitions in this dictionary have been used in court for over a century. College bookstores usually have used copies that one can cheaply purchase. It is best if one purchases a copy because not only will one refer to it often but, by just spending a few hours thumbing through it will open one's eyes to a lot of the cons and frauds that are occurring. This is an outstanding method to develop one's thinking ability.

There are numerous dead-language latin phrases listed in this dictionary which reveal axioms of law. Two maxims are found on the top and bottom of this page [they are not in Black's Law, but give one a rough idea]; the top one was an observation by the Roman historian Tacitus, "The worse the state, the more laws it has". The bottom maxim is from an inscription at Harvard Law School: "It is not by men but by God and law [that we are governed]". On-line is Bouvier's Law Dictionary and some portions of Black's.

It's been argued that the Constitution does not appear to apply to anyone except those who take and oath to support it. It does not apply directly to you, or me, or anyone except Agents of the State who took that oath, [Lyasnder Spooner, in No Treason No. VI, argued that it does not even apply to them]. Other lovers of liberty disagree[2]. In common practice, though, the bureaucrats, police and politicians usually do uphold the constitution -- unfortunately it's the de facto constitution -- which Frederick Mann has accurately defined as, "Anything goes -- that we [the establishment] can get away with".

"This Constitution and the Laws made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land...all Judges shall be bound thereby...any Thing...to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America (1789).

"...[W]hat shall be the supreme law of the land... only laws that are made in pursuance of the constitution have that rank. . .All laws repugnant to the Constitution are void of law." Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 at Sec. 180, (1803)

"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. . .unconstitutional law bears no power to enforce, it purports to settle as if it never existed, for unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such a law and not such time as branded in an open court of law. . .it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. No courts are bound to uphold it and no persons are bound to obey it." 16 Am Jur 256.

In reality the term "unconstitutional law" is an oxymoron and common euphemism which indicates that the enforcement of such a law is, in and of itself, an illegal action. Unconstitutional acts violate secured rights of Americans and, since it is the primary function of the State to secure these rights, officers of the government have been bound by an oath to support and defend the constitution.

Although the courts have ruled one cannot sue "the government," any officer of "the government" who engages in an unconstitutional act and violates their oath of office can, like any other miscreant, be sued for "bank, business, house and home" as a private individual, under 42 USC 1983:

Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any person of the United States or other Person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

The above signifies that any law which conflicts with the Constitution is outside the limits imposed by the Constitution and operates as fictitious color of law.

Black's Law Dictionary, (revised 6th ed.,) defines the word fictitious as something "arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object."

Color and Color of Law are defined as, "...an appearance or semblance, as distinguished from that which is real...a deceptive appearance...without the substance of legal right. Misuse of power...possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state. Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186."

How does color of law work? Many Americans, because of their respect of what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, "...either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command. . ." United States v. Minker 350 US 179 at Sec 187 [100 L Ed 185, 76 S.Ct 281; (1956).]

Let us quickly apply what we have just learned. In order to best learn this information one must, first and foremost, get off their haunches and instead of turning on the reassuring babble of the idiot tube tomorrow night, go down to the local law library merely for one-half hour. One-half hour a week is not asking too much is it? That is merely missing one sit-com re-run a week. For this small exchange, in a few months one will become highly comfortable in the law library. By merely pulling out 16 American Jurisprudence 2nd. and going through sections 1-300, following the trails where they lead, one will have come a long, extremely noticeable distance. Researching Becraft's Briefs is even better.

This, I believe, is enough information for one to start visiting the local law library and effectively cut their teeth doing their own basic legal research. When one feels compelled to do some more advanced legal research such as competently defending one's self in an open court of law, removing liens, abating frivolously unlawful demands, regulations and payments, getting the IRS and other "alphabet soup" federal bureaucracies out of your life, etc., the links offered below are a step in the right direction. For some futher study on-line read the following:

As for Legal Advice, I find that the AntiShyster disclaimer says it best:

The ONLY legal advice this publication offers is this: Any attempt to learn to cope with our modern judicial system must be tempered with the sure and certain knowledge that law is always a crapshoot. That is, nothing, not even brown paper bags filled with hundred dollar bills and handed to the judge will absolutely guarantee your victory in a juducial trial or administrative hearing. The most you can hope for is to improve the probability that you may win. Therefore, do not depend on the articles or advertisements within this publication to illustrate anything more than the opinions or experiences of others trying to escape, survive, attack, or even make sense of "the best judicial system in the world". But don't be discouraged. There's not another foolproof publication on law in the entire USA - except The Bible.

Non sub homine sed sub deo et lege

Footnotes:
1. The comprehensive Findlaw archive is not yet fully complete, and some of the cases from the last century are not yet on-line, thus, not all valid cases will appear. [back]

2. The Constitution Society expressed disagreement with the above statement, arguing:

"It is not correct that one is bound to the provisions of the Constitution only if one takes an oath to uphold it. The Constitution is an implementation of the basic social contract, which is binding on all those who are parties to the social contract, which includes all persons who are citizens or denizens, including foreign visitors while present under U.S. jurisdiction (state or non-state). The oath only makes the person subject to (common law) criminal penalties (for violation of the oath) and to impeachment, in addition to any penalties that may be incurred by an act which violates it.

"The principal effect of every citizen and denizen being bound by the Cosntitution is to make them duty-bound to uphold constitutional official acts (all persons within the jurisdiction) and to defend the state (which denizens but not foreign visitors are bound to do).

"We do not include material by Lysander Spooner because, while he was an earnest fellow, his understanding of constitutional principles was shallow, the lack perhaps of certain key concepts that were not well-developed during his era. In fairness, Jefferson made some of the same mistakes, such as not understanding the transitive character of the social contract.

"We have made some progress in the last 200 years. The basic notions on which set theory and mathematical logic are based were available to them then, but not developed with the richness and precision that we have available to us today.

"To explain, a relation R is transitive if aRb & bRc => aRc. The social contract begins with the bond between parent and child, and extends to the family, neighbors, and countrymen by the provision of the social contract that "to be in the social contract with me, you must extend it to include all those with whom I am in the social contract". That amounts to a mutual delegation of the power, each to each other, to extend the membership of the community, through childbirth, marriage, and acceptance of newcomers, and thereby extends the social contract, and, by implication, the Constitution, to future generations, who are in turn bound to the past generations who laid the foundations.

"The rule of inference used in the above extension is called induction. If proposition P(n) is true for some value n = k, and the proposition P(n) => P(N + 1) is also true, then P is true for all values n >= k. It works for members of a community by indexing its members, that is, mapping each of them to a positive number, beginning with any given member and proceeding outward to their fellow members." -- Jon Roland; [back]

-