5.

A law that "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution
is presumptively unconstitutional." Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76; Harris v. McRae, 448 US
297,312.
6. Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law." Connally v.
General Construction Co., 269 US 385,391.
7. "The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently
unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.
8. "A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238.
9. "A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates
the first essential of due process oflaw." Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385,391.
10. "If it is law, it will be found in the books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law." Boyd v. Us.,
116 U.S. 616.
11. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
137,174,176.
12. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. Us.,
230 F, 2d 286,489.
13. "Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superceded thereby." 16
Am. Jur. 2nd 177 late Am. Jur. 2nd, 256.
14. "Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly
intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences."
Brady v. US., 397 U.S. 742 at 748.
15. "But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible directly to the fundamental
law and no other authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it."
Yakus v. US., 321 U.S., 414 pg. 468.

This Court lacks discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.

1. "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. Us., 474 F 2d 215.

2. "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court
lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather should dismiss the action."
Melo v, US., 505 F.2d. 1026.
3. "Whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court is obliged to dismiss
the action." Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37; U. S. v. Texas, 252 F. Supp 234,254.
4. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation
which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.
5. That court proceedings must be within Constitutional provisions has been forcefully established by
the Supreme Court. Smith v. US, 360 US 1; Muskrat v. United States, 219 US 346.

Dated this day of in the year of our Lord two thousand and _

a living breathing Lawful Man/Woman

Memorandum in Support of Affidavit of Probable Cause. Page 2 of two