TheBillofRightsFraudPartI Afterhavingthiscaseandothersfor16years,andpostingtotheinternetwithnoresponse,Ifigureditshooktothecorebeliefsthatpeopledonotacceptthefactsas statedinnumerouslegalbooksthattheBillofRightswasneverintendedforthepeoplelikeyouandIinthestates.You,ofcourse,liketocitetheConstitutionandBillof Rightsallthetime,littleknowingthatindoingsoyouputyourselfattheirfeetgrovelingasaslaveshoulddo. ThiscaseandotherstofollowinPartII,ifunderstood,willshowjusthowcorruptthefoundingfatherswereinkeepingtothemselvesthecontractbetweenthemselvesand noothersinthestates.JustasLysanderSpoonerstated,theConstitutionwasofnoauthority.Whypeoplehavenotfoundoutbynowshowshowgoodthefraudhas been,andhowbrainwashedtheaverageAmericanis.TokeepthearticlesfrombecomingtoolongtodigestIbreakthewholearticleintwoparts.Thisfirstpartisallthe JohnBarroncasewithnocommentsinterjectedsoIdon'tmakeanyconfusingstatements.ThePartIIhasabriefinjectionofmycomments,otherwiseit'sallfromthe ConstitutionalLawbook.Totellyouhowitwillshakeyourcorebeliefstothefoundation,Ihadaparalegalfriendhereforavisit.IbroughtupthesubjectthattheBillof Rightswasnothis.Heimmediatelyreactedwith'noitisn'tso'.WellIwalkedtomyofficeandbroughtoutwhatyouwillreadinPartII.Afterreadingmaybefivepages,he said'no,itcan'tbe',letmeseetheBarroncaseitself.Nowmindyou,heissharperthanmostattorneysandotherparalegalsanddidnotwanttobelievewhathewas reading.SoIhandedhimtheBarronCase,whichyouwillreadhereandithasneverbeenoverturnedtothisday.Afterreadingithesaid,whythose...[expletivedeleted], nowonderwhyweloseinallcases.Iamreadingitandstillfindithardtobelievetheywoulddothis.Sowhenheaskedtowhomdoesitapply,Ibroughtoutvarious othercertifieddocumentsandshowedhim.Thenhiscorebeliefsjusthadanicecoldicepickdriventhroughthemandhewasshookuptosaytheleast.NowinPartII youwillreadhowtheyincorporatedthoseBillofRightsintoyourlifewhichgavethemmorecontroloveryouthaniftheyhadn'tdoneathing.

Does14thAmendmentmeananythingtoyou?Doyouknowthatonly14thAmendmentpeoplecanusetheBillofRightsandwhenyoudoinvokeanyoftheoriginalten BillofRightsyouadmittobeingcoveredbythe14thandtheAshwanderdoctrinewillburyyou?Sobeware,youwillgointocognitivedissonance,guaranteedbecause yourcorebeliefswillbeshatteredtosaytheleastandyouwillnotthinkthesamethingsyouhaveforallyourlifetothispoint,IFitdoessinkinwhatthiscriminal governmenthasdonetoallofustoday,andallyourfamilyallthewaybackto1776. TheInformer 9232006 32U.S.243 ONWRITOFERRORTOTHECOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHE WESTERNSHOREOFTHESTATEOFMARYLAND Syllabus TheprovisionintheFifthAmendmenttotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates declaringthatprivatepropertyshallnotbetakenforpublicusewithoutjust compensationisintendedsolelyasalimitationontheexerciseofpowerbythe GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,andisnotapplicabletothelegislationofthe States. TheConstitutionwasordainedandestablishedbythepeopleoftheUnited Statesforthemselves,fortheirowngovernment,andnotforthegovernmentof individualStates.EachStateestablishedaconstitutionforitself,andinthat constitutionprovidedsuchlimitationsandrestrictionsonthepowersofitsparticular governmentasitsjudgmentdictated.ThepeopleoftheUnitedStatesframedsuch agovernmentfortheUnitedStatesastheysupposedbestadaptedtotheir situation,andbestcalculatedtopromotetheirinterests.Thepowerstheyconferred onthisgovernmentweretobeexercisedbyitself,andthelimitationsonpower,if expressedingeneralterms,arenaturallyandnecessarilyapplicabletothe governmentcreatedbytheinstrument.Theyarelimitationsofpowergrantedinthe instrumentitself,notofdistinctgovernmentsframedbydifferentpersonsandfor differentpurposes. Thiscasewasinstitutedbytheplaintiffinerror,againsttheCityofBaltimore, underitscorporatetitleof"TheMayorandCityCouncilofBaltimore,"torecover damagesforinjuriestothewharfpropertyoftheplaintiff,arisingfromtheactsof thecorporation.Craig&Barron,ofwhomtheplaintiffwassurvivor,wereowners ofanextensiveandhighlyproductivewharfintheeasternsectionofBaltimore, enjoying,attheperiodoftheirpurchaseofit,thedeepestwaterintheharbor.The city,intheassertedexerciseofitscorporateauthorityovertheharbor,thepaving ofstreets,andregulatinggradesforpaving,andoverthehealthofBaltimore, divertedfromtheiraccustomedandnaturalcoursecertainstreamsofwaterwhich flowfromtherangeofhillsborderingthecity,anddivertedthem,partlyby adoptingnewgradesofstreets,andpartlybythenecessaryresultsofpaving,and partlybymounds,[p*244]embankmentsandotherartificialmeanspurposely adaptedtobendthecourseofthewatertothewharfinquestion.Thesestreams becomingveryfullandviolentinrains,carrieddownwiththemfromthehillsand thesoiloverwhichtheyranlargemassesofsandandearth,whichtheydeposited along,andwidelyinfrontofthewharfoftheplaintiff.Theallegedconsequencewas thatthewaterwasrenderedsoshallowthatitceasedtobeusefulforvesselsofan

flowfromtherangeofhillsborderingthecity,anddivertedthem,partlyby adoptingnewgradesofstreets,andpartlybythenecessaryresultsofpaving,and partlybymounds,[p*244]embankmentsandotherartificialmeanspurposely adaptedtobendthecourseofthewatertothewharfinquestion.Thesestreams becomingveryfullandviolentinrains,carrieddownwiththemfromthehillsand thesoiloverwhichtheyranlargemassesofsandandearth,whichtheydeposited along,andwidelyinfrontofthewharfoftheplaintiff.Theallegedconsequencewas thatthewaterwasrenderedsoshallowthatitceasedtobeusefulforvesselsofan importantburden,lostitsincome,andbecameoflittleornovalueasawharf.This injurywasassertedtohavebeeninflictedbyaseriesofordinancesofthe corporation,betweentheyears1815and1821andthattheevilwasprogressive andthatitwasactiveandincreasingevenattheinstitutionofthissuitin1822. AtthetrialofthecauseintheBaltimorecountycourt,theplaintiffgave evidencetendingtoprovetheoriginalandnaturalcourseofthestreams,thevarious worksofthecorporationfromtimetotimetoturntheminthedirectionofthis wharf,andtheruinousconsequencesofthesemeasurestotheinterestsofthe plaintiff.Itwasnotassertedbythedefendants,thatanycompensationfortheinjury wasevermadeorproffered,buttheyjustifiedundertheauthoritytheydeduced fromthecharterofthecity,grantedbythelegislatureofMaryland,andunder severalactsofthelegislatureconferringpowersonthecorporationinregardtothe gradingandpavingofstreets,theregulationoftheharboranditswaters,andtothe healthofthecity.Theyalsodenied,thattheplaintiffhadshownanycauseofaction inthedeclaration,assertingthattheinjurycomplainedofwasamatterofpublic nuisance,andnotofspecialorindividualgrievanceintheeyeofthelaw.Thislatter groundwastakenonexception,andwasalsourgedasareasonforamotionin arrestofjudgment.Onallpoints,thedecisionofBaltimorecountycourtwas againstthedefendants,andaverdictfor$4,500wasrenderedfortheplaintiff.An appealwastakentothecourtofappeals,whichreversedthejudgmentof Baltimorecountycourt,anddidnotremandthecasetothatcourtforafurthertrial. Fromthisjudgment,thedefendantinthecourtofappealsprosecutedawritof errortothiscourt.[p*245] Thecounselfortheplaintiffpresentedthefollowingpoints:theplaintiffinerror willcontendthatapartfromthelegislativesanctionsofthestateofMaryland,and theactsofthecorporationofBaltimore,holdingoutspecialencouragementand protectiontointerestsinwharvesconstructedontheshoresofthePatapscoriver, andparticularlyofthewharferectedbyCraigandtheplaintiff,Barrontherightand profitofwharfage,anduseofthewateratthewharf,fortheobjectsofnavigation, wasavestedinterestandincorporealhereditament,inviolableevenbythestate exceptonjustcompensationfortheprivationbuttheactofassemblyandthe ordinanceoftheCityarereliedonasenforcingtheclaimtotheundisturbed enjoymentoftheright. Thisrightwasinterferedwith,andthebenefitofthispropertytakenawayfrom theplaintiffbythecorporationavowedly,asthedefenceshowed,forpublicuse, foranobjectofpublicinterestthebenefitmoreimmediatelyofthecommunityof Baltimore,theindividuals,partofthepopulationofMaryland,knownbythe corporatetitleoftheMayorandCityCouncilofBaltimore.The"inhabitants"of BaltimorearethusincorporatedbytheActsof1796,ch.68.Asacorporation, theyaremadeliabletobesued,andauthorizedtosue,toacquireandholdand disposeofpropertyand,withinthescopeofthepowersconferredbythecharter, areallowedtopassordinanceandlegislativeacts,whichitisdeclaredbythe chartershallhavethesameeffectasactsofassembly,andbeoperative,provided theybenotrepugnanttothelawsofthestate,ortheconstitutionofthestate,orof theUnitedStates.Theplaintiffwillcontendaccordingly: 1.ThattheMayorandCityCouncilofBaltimore,thoughviewedevenasa municipalcorporation,isliablefortortandactualmisfeasance,andthatitisatort, andwouldbesoeveninthestate,actinginherimmediatesovereigntytodeprivea citizenofhisproperty,thoughforpublicuses,withoutindemnificationthat, regardingthecorporationasactingwiththedelegatedpowerofthestate,theact complainedofisnotthelessanactionabletort. 2.Thatthisisthecaseofanauthorityexercisedundera[p*246] State,thecorporationappealingtothelegislativeactsofMarylandforthe discretionalpowerwhichithasexercised. 3.ThatthisexerciseofauthoritywasrepugnanttotheconstitutionoftheUnited States,contraveningthefiftharticleoftheamendmentstotheconstitution,which declaresthat"privatepropertyshallnotbetakenforpublicuse,withoutjust compensation,"theplaintiffcontending,thatthisarticledeclaresprincipleswhich regulatethelegislationofthestatesfortheprotectionofthepeopleineachandall thestates,regardedascitizensoftheUnitedStatesorasinhabitantssubjecttothe lawsoftheUnion. 4.Thatundertheevidence,prayers,andpleadingsinthecase,the constitutionalityofthisauthorityexercisedunderthestatemusthavebeendrawnin question,andthatthiscourthasappellatejurisdictionofthepoint,fromthe judgmentoftheCourtofAppealsofMaryland,thehighestcourtofthatstate,that

thestates,regardedascitizensoftheUnitedStatesorasinhabitantssubjecttothe lawsoftheUnion. 4.Thatundertheevidence,prayers,andpleadingsinthecase,the constitutionalityofthisauthorityexercisedunderthestatemusthavebeendrawnin question,andthatthiscourthasappellatejurisdictionofthepoint,fromthe judgmentoftheCourtofAppealsofMaryland,thehighestcourtofthatstate,that pointbeingtheessentialgroundoftheplaintiff'spretentioninoppositiontothe poweranddiscussionofthecorporation. 5.Thatthiscourt,insuchappellatecognisance,isnotconfinedtothe establishmentofanabstractpointofconstruction,butisempoweredtopassupon therightortitleofeitherparty,andmaythereforedetermineallpointsincidentalor preliminarytothequestionoftitleandnecessaryinthecoursetothatinquirythat consequently,thequestionisforthiscourt'sdeterminationwhetherthedeclaration aversactionablematter,orwhetherthecomplaintisonlyofapublicnuisance,and onthathead,theplaintiffwillcontend,thatspecialdamageisfullyshownhere, withintheprincipleofthecaseswhereanindividualinjuryresultingfromapublic nuisanceisdeemedactionable,thewrongbeingmerelypubliconlysolongasthe lawsufferedintheparticularcaseisnomorethanallmembersofthecommunity suffer. Upontheseviews,theplaintiffcontendsthatthejudgmentofthecourtof appealsoughttobereversed.[p*247] Opinions Mr.ChiefJusticeMARSHALLdeliveredtheopinionofthecourt. MARSHALL,C.J.,OpinionoftheCourt Mr.ChiefJusticeMARSHALLdeliveredtheopinionofthecourt. ThejudgmentbroughtupbythiswritoferrorhavingbeenrenderedbythecourtofaState,this tribunalcanexercisenojurisdictionoveritunlessitbeshowntocomewithintheprovisionsofthe 25thsectionoftheJudiciaryAct.Theplaintiffinerrorcontendsthatitcomeswithinthatclausein theFifthAmendmenttotheConstitutionwhichinhibitsthetakingofprivatepropertyforpublic usewithoutjustcompensation.Heinsiststhatthisamendment,beinginfavorofthelibertyofthe citizen,oughttobesoconstruedastorestrainthelegislativepowerofastate,aswellasthatof theUnitedStates.Ifthispropositionbeuntrue,thecourtcantakenojurisdictionofthecause. Thequestionthuspresentedis,wethink,ofgreatimportance,butnotofmuchdifficulty.The ConstitutionwasordainedandestablishedbythepeopleoftheUnitedStatesforthemselves,for theirowngovernment,andnotforthegovernmentoftheindividualStates.EachStateestablished aconstitutionforitself,andinthatconstitutionprovidedsuchlimitationsandrestrictionsonthe powersofitsparticulargovernmentasitsjudgmentdictated.ThepeopleoftheUnitedStates framedsuchagovernmentfortheUnitedStatesastheysupposedbestadaptedtotheirsituation andbestcalculatedtopromotetheirinterests.Thepowerstheyconferredonthisgovernment weretobeexercisedbyitself,andthelimitationsonpower,ifexpressedingeneralterms,are naturally,andwethinknecessarily,applicabletothegovernmentcreatedbytheinstrument.They arelimitationsofpowergrantedintheinstrumentitself,notofdistinctgovernmentsframedby differentpersonsandfordifferentpurposes. Ifthesepropositionsbecorrect,thefifthamendmentmustbeunderstoodasrestrainingthe poweroftheGeneralGovernment,notasapplicabletotheStates.IntheirseveralConstitutions, theyhaveimposedsuchrestrictionsontheirrespective[p*248]governments,astheirown wisdomsuggested,suchastheydeemedmostproperforthemselves.Itisasubjectonwhich theyjudgeexclusively,andwithwhichothersinterferenofurtherthantheyaresupposedtohave acommoninterest. ThecounselfortheplaintiffinerrorinsiststhattheConstitutionwasintendedtosecurethepeople oftheseveralStatesagainsttheundueexerciseofpowerbytheirrespectiveStategovernments, aswellasagainstthatwhichmightbeattemptedbytheirGeneralGovernment.Itsupportofthis argumenthereliesontheinhibitionscontainedinthetenthsectionofthefirstarticle.Wethinkthat sectionaffordsastrong,ifnotaconclusive,argumentinsupportoftheopinionalreadyindicated bythecourt.Theprecedingsectioncontainsrestrictionswhichareobviouslyintendedforthe exclusivepurposeofrestrainingtheexerciseofpowerbythedepartmentsoftheGeneral Government.SomeofthemuselanguageapplicableonlytoCongress,othersareexpressedin generalterms.Thethirdclause,forexample,declares,that"nobillofattainderorexpostfacto lawshallbepassed."Nolanguagecanbemoregeneral,yetthedemonstrationiscompletethatit appliessolelytotheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates.Inadditiontothegeneralarguments furnishedbytheinstrumentitself,someofwhichhavebeenalreadysuggested,thesucceeding section,theavowedpurposeofwhichistorestrainStatelegislation,containsintermsthevery prohibition.Itdeclares,that"noStateshallpassanybillofattainderorexpostfactolaw."This provision,then,oftheninthsection,howevercomprehensiveitslanguage,containsnorestriction onStatelegislation. Theninthsectionhavingenumerated,inthenatureofabillofrights,thelimitationsintendedtobe imposedonthepowersoftheGeneralGovernment,thetenthproceedstoenumeratethose whichweretooperateontheStatelegislatures.Theserestrictionsarebroughttogetherinthe

prohibition.Itdeclares,that"noStateshallpassanybillofattainderorexpostfactolaw."This provision,then,oftheninthsection,howevercomprehensiveitslanguage,containsnorestriction onStatelegislation. Theninthsectionhavingenumerated,inthenatureofabillofrights,thelimitationsintendedtobe imposedonthepowersoftheGeneralGovernment,thetenthproceedstoenumeratethose whichweretooperateontheStatelegislatures.Theserestrictionsarebroughttogetherinthe samesection,andarebyexpresswordsappliedtotheStates."NoStateshallenterintoany treaty,"&c.Perceiving,thatinaconstitutionframedbythepeopleoftheUnitedStates,forthe governmentofall,nolimitationoftheactionofgovernmenton[p*249]thepeoplewouldapply totheStategovernment,unlessexpressedinterms,therestrictionscontainedinthetenthsection areindirectwordssoappliedtotheStates. Itisworthyofremark,too,thattheseinhibitionsgenerallyrestrainStatelegislationonsubjects intrustedtotheGeneralGovernment,orinwhichthepeopleofalltheStatesfeelaninterest.A Stateisforbiddentoenterintoanytreaty,allianceorconfederation.Ifthesecompactsarewith foreignnations,theyinterferewiththetreatymakingpower,whichisconferredentirelyonthe GeneralGovernmentifwitheachother,forpoliticalpurposes,theycanscarcelyfailtointerfere withthegeneralpurposeandintentoftheConstitution.Tograntlettersofmarqueandreprisal, wouldleaddirectlytowar,thepowerofdeclaringwhichisexpresslygiventoCongress.Tocoin moneyisalsotheexerciseofapowerconferredonCongress.Itwouldbetedioustorecapitulate theseverallimitationsonthepowersoftheStateswhicharecontainedinthissection.Theywill befoundgenerallytorestrainStatelegislationonsubjectsintrustedtothegovernmentofthe Union,inwhichthecitizensofalltheStatesareinterested.Inthesealonewerethewholepeople concerned.ThequestionoftheirapplicationtoStatesisnotlefttoconstruction.Itisaverredin positivewords. IftheoriginalConstitution,intheninthandtenthsectionsofthefirstarticle,drawsthisplainand markedlineofdiscriminationbetweenthelimitationsitimposesonthepowersoftheGeneral GovernmentandonthoseoftheStateif,ineveryinhibitionintendedtoactonStatepower, wordsareemployedwhichdirectlyexpressthatintentsomestrongreasonmustbeassignedfor departingfromthissafeandjudiciouscourseinframingtheamendmentsbeforethatdeparture canbeassumed.Wesearchinvainforthatreason. HadthepeopleoftheseveralStates,oranyofthem,requiredchangesintheirConstitutions,had theyrequiredadditionalsafeguardstolibertyfromtheapprehendedencroachmentsoftheir particulargovernments,theremedywasintheirownhands,andcouldhavebeenappliedby themselves.A[p*250]conventioncouldhavebeenassembledbythediscontentedState,and therequiredimprovementscouldhavebeenmadebyitself.Theunwieldyandcumbrous machineryofprocuringarecommendationfromtwothirdsofCongressandtheassentof threefourthsoftheirsisterStatescouldneverhaveoccurredtoanyhumanbeingasamodeof doingthatwhichmightbeeffectedbytheStateitself.Hadtheframersoftheseamendments intendedthemtobelimitationsonthepowersoftheStategovernments,theywouldhaveimitated theframersoftheoriginalConstitution,andhaveexpressedthatintention.HadCongress engagedintheextraordinaryoccupationofimprovingtheConstitutionsoftheseveralStatesby affordingthepeopleadditionalprotectionfromtheexerciseofpowerbytheirowngovernments inmatterswhichconcernedthemselvesalone,theywouldhavedeclaredthispurposeinplainand intelligiblelanguage. Butitisuniversallyunderstood,itisapartofthehistoryoftheday,thatthegreatrevolution whichestablishedtheConstitutionoftheUnitedStateswasnoteffectedwithoutimmense opposition.Seriousfearswereextensivelyentertainedthatthosepowerswhichthepatriot statesmenwhothenwatchedovertheinterestsofourcountrydeemedessentialtounion,andto theattainmentofthoseinvaluableobjectsforwhichunionwassought,mightbeexercisedina mannerdangeroustoliberty.InalmosteveryconventionbywhichtheConstitutionwasadopted, amendmentstoguardagainsttheabuseofpowerwererecommended.Theseamendments demandedsecurityagainsttheapprehendedencroachmentsoftheGeneralGovernmentnot againstthoseofthelocalgovernments.Incompliancewithasentimentthusgenerallyexpressed, toquietfearsthusextensivelyentertained,amendmentswereproposedbytherequiredmajority inCongressandadoptedbytheStates.Theseamendmentscontainnoexpressionindicatingan intentiontoapplythemtotheStategovernments.Thiscourtcannotsoapplythem. WeareofopinionthattheprovisionintheFifthAmendmenttotheConstitutiondeclaringthat privatepropertyshallnotbetakenforpublicusewithoutjustcompensationisintendedsolelyas alimitationontheexerciseofpowerbythe[p*251]GovernmentoftheUnitedStates,andisnot applicabletothelegislationoftheStates.Wearethereforeofopinionthatthereisnorepugnancy betweentheseveralactsofthegeneralassemblyofMaryland,giveninevidencebythe defendantsatthetrialofthiscause,inthecourtofthatState,andtheConstitutionoftheUnited States.Thiscourt,therefore,hasnojurisdictionofthecause,anditisdismissed. ThiscausecameontobeheardonthetranscriptoftherecordfromtheCourtofAppealsforthe WesternShoreoftheStateofMaryland,andwasarguedbycounsel.Onconsiderationwhereof, itistheopinionofthisCourtthatthereisnorepugnancybetweentheseveralactsoftheGeneral AssemblyofMarylandgiveninevidencebythedefendantsatthetrialofthiscauseinthecourtof thatStateandtheConstitutionoftheUnitedStateswhereuponitisorderedandadjudgedby thiscourtthatthiswritoferrorbe,andthesameishereby,dismissedforthewantofjurisdiction.