Looking for a Law Firm for U. S. Supreme Court Filing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether the Eighth Circuit or district court erred as a matter of law under Langford v. United States, 101 U.S. 341, 343-344 (1879) and United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 503 (1954) by terminating litigation, not manifesting a legal remedy or applying a proper standard of review sought for the civil liberty in vital quintessential rights exercised as protected speech and petition speech of Petitioner when; the Court ignored, failed or refused to faithfully discharge all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. Under such practice or precedent in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) and Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163 (1803) this Court should vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment and instruct that court to remand the case to the district court with directions to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws made in pursuant thereof; providing prospective and declaratory relief consistent with the judgement as a remedy at law, with regards to the First, Fifth and Ninth Amendment rights established by the U. S. Constitution or as mandated by the U. S. Supreme Court’s decisions, doctrines or the Judiciary Act of 1789 germane to this case or of its appeal.

Three questions of exceptional importance are presented:

(1) Did judges of the Eighth Circuit or district court satisfy their sworn oath of office and solemn duty or important role to faithfully discharge Court doctrines and to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws made in pursuant thereof?

(2) Did the Eighth Circuit appropriately conclude that Petitioner’s substantive and procedural due process challenges to his First Amendment free exercise claims as protected speech of religious beliefs or within his petition speech of establishment clause challenges were properly considered?

(3) Did the Eighth Circuit forsake the Supremacy Clause?

Please call Terry Hinds at (636) 675-0028, if your law firm can and has handled U.S. Supreme Court Filings or email me at quest76@att.net

Pacer Documents

1. Doc. No. 93 Memorandum & Order

2. Doc. No. 94 Order of Dismissal

3. No. 18-1299 Judgment 2-16-2018

4. No. 18-1299 Mandate 2-26-2018

5. ORDER 4-2-2018 – 8th Circuit

6. Petition 8th Circuit 2-29-2018

7. Petition Rehearing 8th Circuit 3-8-2018

–Page Break–

No. ________

_____________________________________________

In the Supreme Court of the United States

__________________________________

TERRY LEE HINDS,

Petitioner,

– vs. –

HONORABLE JUDGE AUDREY G. FLEISSIG,

Respondent,

“UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT,

Real Party in Interest.

__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

__________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

__________________________________________________________________

TERRY LEE HINDS, pro se
438 Leicester Square Drive
Ballwin, Missouri 63021
636-675-0028
Submitted: May 16, XXXX

__________________________________

For additional information go to:

https://tlc76.com/revelation-in-the-making/free_e/

In the Supreme Court of the United States

______________

No. 18-1299

TERRY LEE HINDS,

Petitioner,

HONORABLE JUDGE AUDREY G. FLEISSIG,

Respondent,

“UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT,

Real Party in Interest.

______________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

______________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

______________

Petitioner, Terry Lee Hinds, respectfully petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgment and mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in case No. 18-1299, entered on February 26, 2018. Petitioner also seeks a review of the Order issued regarding his petition for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with the circuit court, which was denied on April 2, 2018.

______________

OPINIONS AND JUDGMENT BELOW

On February 26, 2018 a panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals offered no written opinion affirming the final judgment and the validity of the proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri regarding case No. 4:17-CV-750-AGF. That district court and Respondent had issued an Order of Dismissal on December 11, 2017 decreeing no legal remedy exists for Petitioner’s claims and causes of action, due to the Federal Sovereign Immunity Doctrine and U.S. Tax Law. Petitioner pursued an appeal of this judgment or decree, but Eighth Circuit issued a final judgment and mandate denying Petitioner’s verified petition for a writ of mandamus and a writ prohibition, or, in the alternative, a verified petition writ of certiorari on February 26, 2018. A copy of the decision or judgement appears in Appendix “A” with a copy of the mandate appears in Appendix “B” to this petition.

On March 8, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Circuit Court, which was denied on April 2, 2018. A copy of that petition appears in Appendix “C” to this petition. The Eighth Circuit issued an Order without a written opinion disclosed, nor a legal remedy provided for court sanction reliefs sought for vital constitutional matters regarding the First, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, and the laws made in pursuant thereof. A copy of that Order is attached hereto as Appendix “D”.

______________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

These petitions for writs seeking an appeal, were pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S. Code, §§ 1651, 2106, Fed. R. App. P., Rule 21 and the Judiciary Act of 1789, seeking a review for defects of justice and to advance or exercise a First Amendment right to protest and petition “as of right” to appeal, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse the District Court’s “Order of Dismissal” issued on December 11, 2017 (ECF. No. 94) and the Order issued in Memorandum and Order (ECF. No. 93) filed on February 9, 2018. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254(1), 1651(a), 2101(c), 2106 and Part III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.

____________

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case

Petitioner’s suit arises under the Establishment/Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and as a matter of first impression in a Ninth Amendment right of a civil liberty sought, for raison d’etre. As a religious Plaintiff, with a spiritual stake in First Amendment values sufficient to give standing to raise issues concerning the Establishment Clause & the Free Exercise Clause seeks prospective and declaratory reliefs. A pro se complaint/petition filed as a civil action for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law, thereby to secure, protect and defend Petitioner’s free exercise of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. An actual case and substantial controversy exists between Petitioner and Defendants, the Real Party in Interest as to their respective legal rights and duties that may be adjudicated by the Court’s jurisdiction consistent with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and the laws made in pursuant thereof. Petitioner is engaged in peaceful expressive activity pursuant to established fundamental free exercise rights of the First Amendment and the rule of law of this Nation. As a message and expression of protected conduct in pure speech of religious belief, and conscience, Petitioner filed an original verified complaint/petition in order to be able to run his business and conduct his personal or private affairs in a manner consistent with revered religions, religious values and within his [sincerely held religious beliefs] (“[believes]”); that have shaped his life, liberties and pursuant of happiness, as well as, his little company of a spiritual enterprise from its start. As a United States citizen or a person’s conscience dictates, [believes] in the constitutional right to endorse, indoctrinate, or proselytize religion with the free exercise right of religious belief over the lack of such belief. Therefore, this Court must guarantee full First Amendment protection to both the lawful practice of the establishment, endorsement or proselytizing a religion, and with the free exercise of religious beliefs, as one cannot exist without the other.

__________________________________________________________________

Please call Terry Hinds at (636) 675-0028, if your law firm can and has handled U.S. Supreme Court Filings or email me at quest76@att.net