Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jonathan Moreland, Petitioner v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, et al.

Supreme Court briefJul 26, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

NO:

^6' 11 52-

FILED

JUL 2 6 2025

OFFICE of the clerk

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

3fn tfje Supreme Court of tfje ®niteb

ORIGINS

States;

JONATHAN MORELAND, Petitioner

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH et.

al., Respondent(s)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Jonathan Moreland

c/o: 35 Everlasting Lane

Augusta, West Virginia [26704]

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The United States District Court, District of West

Virginia lacked lawful authority to require Petitioner

to take a meningitis vaccine in order to attend school:

1. Who owns the physical body of Jonathan Moreland,

Petitioner?

2. Did the lower courts violate petitioner’s due process

rights?

3. Can

CORPORATE

MUNICIPAL

(WEST

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) officer

order a person to take an injection against a medical

doctor’s recommendation?

4. Can

CORPORATE

MUNICIPAL

(WEST

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) officer

presume to have some right, title, or interest, in the

physical body of Petitioner?

5. Does being a “minor” pursuant to Title 31 CFR

363.6 mean that petitioner gives up any right, title,

or interest, in his physical body?

6. Does the United States Army, General of the

Attorneys, aka United States Attorney General (or

her minions^ Bar members or administrative agents)

get to maintain control over petitioner’s physical

body (“container”) when operating as a “common-law

trustee” pursuant to Title 50 USC 4312, para. 4?

7. Would the premises of the case of Ashwander v.

Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936) mean

that petitioner operates in a diminished capacity in

relation to his physical body?

8. Is it true that Respondents as Public Trustees are

operating upon the premise of “why not make every

citizen a corporation sole, and thus bring them all

into the Courts of the United States quo minus?”

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738

(1824)?

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Petitioner operates in a diminished, capacity as an

adult “minor,” United States citizen, pursuant to Title

31 CFR §363.6 with my estate held in trust with the

“common-law trustee,” aka “alien property custodian”

dba United States Attorney General, so petitioner’s

estate domiciled in Washington District of Columbia.

Petitioner retains trust estate grantor status and

beneficial title, and naked owner to his “container,”

i.e. his physical body. UNITED STATES is a

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, District of Columbia

v. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 450 (1890). “The municipal

corporation called the District of Columbia, created by

the Act of June 11,1878,18 Stat. 116, c. 337, is subject

to the same liability for injuries to individuals arising

from the negligence of its officers in maintaining in

safe condition, for the use of the public, the streets,

avenues,

alleys

and sidewalks

of the

City of

Washington, as was the District under the laws in

force when the cause of action in Barnes v. District of

Columbia, 91 U. S. 540 (1875), arose.”

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the

cover page

[X] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case

on the cover page. A list of all parties to the

proceeding in the court whose judgment is the

subject of this petition is as follows:

1. ) Jonathan Moreland, Petitioner

2. ) WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:

D/B/A: David A. Bishop

State Capitol Complex Building 6; Room 817-B

Central Location

Charleston West Virginia [25305)

3. ) STEVEN COMPTON; [Deputy Attorney General]

812 Quarrier St 8th Floor

Charleston West Virginia [25301)

4. ) JASON ROBERT TRAUTWEIN; [Asst. Attorney

General] 812 Quarrier St 6th Floor

vii

Charleston West Virginia [25301)

5. ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

& HUMAN SERVICES;

200 Independence Ave S.W.

Washington D.C. (20201]

6. ) Dr. Ayne Amjad [Former MD for W.V.

Department of Health]

IN PRIVATE AND PERSONAL CAPACITY

330 N. Eisenhower

Beckley West Virginia (25801]

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW....... i iii

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

iv, v

LIST OF PARTIES............................................ vi, vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

viii-xiv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................. x-xiv

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI................. 2

OPINIONS.................................

JURISDICTION........................................................... 4

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED.......................................... 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE........... ......................... 5

FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................................... 6

PROCEEDINGS.......................................................... 7

1. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION.................. 7

2. STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS........................... 8

3. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT................... 8

4. COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH CIRCUIT........ 9

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............. 10

POINTS OF LAW AND FACT...... ................

MEDICAL CONSIDERATIONS.......................

CONCLUSION........................................................... 35

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:

Administrative Court...................................... App. 1

APPENDIX B:

State Court....................................................... App. 4

APPENDIX C:

USDC Court........................................................ App. 5

APPENDIX D:

Appellate Court............................................... App. 14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)....................... 20

Allgeyer v Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897)...... 17

Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).................. 18

Assoc, for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,

Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013)................................................ 20

Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540

(1875).................................................................................. v

Butchers’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,

Ill U.S. 746, 757 (1884)................................................ 16

Byars v. U. S., 273 U.S. 28 (1927)................................ 23

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837

(1984))............................................................................... 11

Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)......................... 16

Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural

Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42 (2024)............. 12

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

District of Columbia v. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 450

(1890).................................................................................. iv

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).................... 23

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)............. 18

Gaylor v. Reagan, 553 F. Supp. 356 (W.D. Wis.

1982).................................................................................. 15

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)....... 14

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,

603 U.S. 369 (2024).......................................................... 11

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)..................... 21

McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33, 5658, 60 S.Ct. 388, 397, 398, 128 A.L.R. 876)................22

Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486 (5th Cir.

1956).................................................................................. 23

Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Jones v.

City of Opelika), 319 U.S. 105 (1943)......................... 22

NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)......................... 20

xii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738

(1824).....................................................

iii

Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935).............. 11

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1, 13, n. 4

(1989). [Page 8].................................................................12

Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, No. 21-

1886 (1st Cir. 2023)........................................................ 12

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618,.......................... 21

Stevens v. Berger, 428 Fed. Supp. 896 (1977)........... 15

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S.

399, 417 (1913).................................................................. 16

United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973)........... 23

United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581

(1968)................................................................................. 22

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794................ 24

xiii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Statute and Code

Title 15 U.S. Code §1..................................................... 4

Title 28 USC §581 - United States trustees............. 18

Title 28 U.S.C. §§1346, 1441, 1442, and 1446........ 3, 8

Title 31 CFR §363.6

17, 19, 24

Title 50 USC §4312, para 4............................................ 17

Acts of Congress

District of Columbia, created by the Act of

June 11, 1878, 18 Stat. 116, c. 337.............................. iv

Maternity Act of 1921.....................................................17

Sherman Antitrust Act........................................... 4, 24

P.L. 97-280.................................................................15, 19

Constitutional Provisions

2nd Amendment.............................................................. 19

5th Amendment........................................................2, 4, 14

7th Amendment.....................................................

13th Amendment....................................................... 15, 20

xiv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

14th Amendment....................................

The Equal Protection Clause............................. 4, 15, 22

Constitution for the united States of America

(circa 1787)........................................................................ 10

Article 1, S10, Cl. 1,

..............................................11

Article VI.C2.1,................................................................. 11

Constitutional Republic of the 1787........................... 18

1871 CORPORATE MUNICIPAL contract............... 18

Treaties

Treaty of Peace of 1783............................................. .

Other Provisions

Law of Future Interest by Simes and Smith............ 17

Title 16 Am Jur 2d Section 97......................

3n tFje Supreme Court of tFje (Hniteti

States

NO:________________ __

JONATHAN MORELAND, Petitioner

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH et.

al., Respondent(s)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JONATHAN MORELAND respectfully petitions for a

writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United

States Court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit in this

case.

OPINIONS

The opinion of the WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES BOARD OF

REVIEW in administrative adjudication regarding

trespass upon petitioner’s (16 y/o) container, i.e. his

physical body, is reported at 23-BOR-1047 and

resulted in a denial of an immunization exemption

request.

The opinion of the Hampshire County Court case no.

CC-14-2024-C-9 (unpublished), for assault, violation

of the Sherman Act, and 5th Amendment protection

regarding trespass upon petitioner’s container, i.e. his

physical body resulted in a removal to the United

States District Court for the Northern District of West

Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1346, 1441, 1442,

and 1446.

The opinion of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of West Virginia case no. 3:24-cv-

00030 regarding trespass upon petitioner’s container,

i.e. his physical body was dismissed in violation of

established law.

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for

the

Fourth

Circuit

regarding

trespass

upon

petitioner’s container, i.e. his physical body, is

reported at USCA4 Appeal: 24-2179. The district

court’s orders denied petitioner’s complaint and

motions for judgment as a matter of law and fact.

JURISDICTION

The case is docketed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as Cause No. USCA4

AppeaL 24-2179 and was decided on April 28, 2025,

before Nwamaka Anowi, Circuit Court Clerk. [See

Exhibit “D”]

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. The Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the

Fourteenth Amendment

2. 5th Amendment

3. Title 15 U.S. Code § 1 (the Sherman Antitrust Act)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner requests this Court exercise its power and

discretion under Rule 14.1(e) of its rules to grant a

Writ of Certiorari after judgment to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has

entered judgment on an appeal of this case. The case

presents questions about bodily autonomy, title to

one’s body, what goes into it, and what powers and

authorities Public Trustees have over that physical

body.

Respondents attempted to require Petitioner to take

an injection called a “vaccine” for the alleged purpose

of protecting petitioner against the meningococcal

virus in order to attend public school. The State

Health

Officer,

now

governor,

Patrick

James

Morrisey, (now governor against the forced mandates)

denied the exemption. No valid reason was ever

provided.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The older brother of petitioner suffers from autism.

The family and his doctors believe the cause of

petitioner’s older brother’s autism is the child health

vaccination schedule requirements.

Petitioner was attending public school in West

Virginia and

The family doctor, on or about August 29, 2022, Dr.

Alieta Eck, MD, Board certified, Internal Medicine of

AFFORDABLE HEALTH, INC. issued an exemption

letter against the meningitis vaccine as it “includes

aluminum, a neurotoxin; formaldehyde, a carcinogen,

and polysorbate 80, which can cause infertility.”

PROCEEDINGS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

Administrative adjudication was performed by and

through the WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES BOARD OF

REVIEW, case no. 23-BOR-1047.

During the

administrative

adjudication period,

January 3, 2023, the family doctor, Alvin H. Moss, MD

wrote a letter on the matter directed to Ayne Amjad,

MD, MPH, Commissioner and State Health Officer,

basically restating the position of Dr. Eck and

expressed the concern that the older brother’s autism

was possibly caused by “all the [childhood] vaccines.”

The finding and outcome of that case was that “The

above-styled matter is an appeal of the denial of an

immunization exemption request by the Appellants

for their child, J.M. On April 5, 2023, J.M. turned 18years old, and therefore is no longer the minor child of

the Appellants.” Said finding and dismissal occurred

June 16th, 2023, by ALJ, David A. Bishop.

2. STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

Once administrative adjudication was completed

petitioner brought suit into the CIRCUIT COURT OF

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA, case no.

CC-14-2024-C-9. The respondents are those named in

this case.

3. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

That case was removed to the IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA, case no. 3:24-cw30,

on or about March 6, 2024, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1346,1441, 1442, and 1446, because the United States

Department of Health and Human Services was a

named defendant in the state case. On October 23,

2024, the USDC court by and through GINA M.

GROH, U.S. District Judge, issued her ORDER

GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO

DISMISS.

4. COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH CIRCUIT

Petitioner timely appealed to the UNITED STATES

COURT

APPEALS

FOR

THE

FOURTH

CIRCUIT, case no. 24-2179. On April 28, 2025, the

Clerk

Court,

NWAMAKA

ANOWI,

issued

JUDGMENT affirming the USDC Court dismissal.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

This Court Should Exercise Its Power to Grant

Review Before Judgment.

For several reasons, the circumstances of this case

make it appropriate for granting Petitioner’s request

for remanding the case back to the UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT for a ruling in favor or petitioner

for the claims stated.

First, the case presents issues of fundamental

importance. It concerns important constitutional and

civil rights, and the resolution of these issues will

almost certainly have effects that extend far beyond

the parties to the case.

Second,

this

Court

knows,

the

court's

responsibility to protect the unalienable rights of

petitioner and his “container” as without that

fundamental liberty interest all other rights are

irrelevant. If the Constitution for the united States of

America (circa 1787) is to remain

. .the supreme Law

of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be

bound thereby. . .” Article VI.C2.1, then the U.S.

Const. Contract Clause found at Al, S10, Cl. 1, needs

to remain intact as well.

The

People,

Constitutional

Grantor/Beneficiaries are to remain “free, sovereign

and independent,” Treaty of Peace of 1783, and

maintain the fact that “sovereignty remains in the

people.” Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935),

then we, petitioner, must be allowed to maintain total

and complete control over our “containers” aka

physical bodies against undue infringement by the

Constitutional and Administrative PUBLIC Trustees.

This court ruled in overturning the Chevron doctrine

(Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984))

last year, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v.

Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) and its companion case

of Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, No. 211886 (1st Cir. 2023), that said administrative courts

cannot violate the 7th Amendment and that PUBLIC

Trustees

aka

government

agents

are

liable,

Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural

Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42 (2024), and

waive sovereign immunity, “holding that” “the Court

has held that sovereign immunity may be waived even

without a separate waiver provision” and that “’If no

magic words

are required’ to waive sovereign

immunity, then the clarity of ‘each statute must be

evaluated on its own terms.’ Pennsylvania v. Union

Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1, 13, n. 4 (1989). [Page 8]”

POINTS OF LAW AND FACT

According to a retired three star U.S. Navy Admiral,

personal knowledge of this writer, the vaccination at

issue is unnecessary except under VERY specific

conditions and to make it worse, there is a problem as

the vaccine batches vary as to quality, content, need,

effectiveness, and application. Requiring the shot may

be a violation of the standards of care and may

constitute malpractice. Therefore, even on a U.S.

military

application

used

sparingly

for

operational readiness.

This potential damage constitutes a “clear and present

danger”

petitioner’s

health

allow for

Constitutional Public Trustee (Administrative Agent)

violation

Loper,

supra,

require

Constitutional Grantor/Beneficiary to be required to

take an injection mandated like something out of

Soviet

era

Communist

Party

International

dictatorship. Mandating ANY INJECTION by the

Constitutional Public Trustees would assume that

said Public Trustees have some sort of right, title or

interest, in the “container” physical body of petitioner.

A constitutional law professor in the 1990s known as

Bill Medina in California used to walk into court with

a button on his suit lapel that read “Who owns me?”

That is the fundamental issue at bar before this court

in this case.

Even under the (now very public case of) Jacobson v.

Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the worst that an

CDC agency could do other than fining someone for

failing

take

vaccination

DURING

EMERGENCY is mandatory quarantine for 14 days.

In this case there was no pandemic like the massive

covid

fraud.

quarantine

was

required,

recommended, or even suggested, as the meningitis

vaccine is entirely voluntary as no danger existed.

The law is clear under the 5th Amendment “No person

shall. . .

be deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law? nor shall private property

be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the

Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall

“deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the Laws.”

It could be argued that in addition to the previous

stated provisions, forcing someone to take such an

injection against their freewill would be a violation of

the 13th Amendment for involuntary servitude. Such

injections affect the human body, i.e. the container.

Petitioner is a religious man and believes that he is an

immortal spiritual being having a cosmic physical

experience on this planet for reasons only known to

his creator, Biblical references notwithstanding, P.L.

97-280, Gaylor v. Reagan, 553 F. Supp. 356 (W.D. Wis.

1982). This is a 1st Amendment issue, right to freedom

of religion, Stevens v. Berger, 428 Fed. Supp. 896

(1977). A “Religious belief can appear preposterous to

every other member of human race yet merit

protections of the Bill of Rights, USCA Const. Amend.

1.”.

Therein, his ability to labor would be affected as has

his brothers, now handicapped. Also, keep in mind

that Petitioner herein must knowingly be involved in

any franchise or privilege of the FEDERAL/STATE

government, which was legitimately subject to excise

taxation, because his property (labor) derived from

property considered by itself as not taxable pursuant

to the holding in Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v.

Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 417 (1913). Therefore, this is

also a jurisdictional issue.

Labor is property per the holding of Butchers’s Union

Co. v. Crescent City Co., Ill U.S. 746, 757 (1884). This

fundamental right to property combines with the right

to contract, including the right to contract for services

in exchange for the sale of labor, pursuant to the

holdings of Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915); and

Allgeyer v Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897). All of

these cases are current Public Policy. Affiant owns

that labor, see Maternity Act of 1921, a deposit, Law

of Future Interest by Simes and Smith.

At the time of the original events Petitioner was 16

years old. i.e. a minor. Petitioner is now an adult

“minor” pursuant to Title 31 CFR §363.6 with his

estate held in trust with the “common-law trustee”

dba “alien property custodian” aka United States

Attorney General, Title 50 USC §4312, para 4.

Therein, Respondents have a “known legal duty” to

protect the Unalienable Rights of petitioner. It is an

important distinction between unalienable rights and

Biblical

duties

the

Constitutional

Grantor/Beneficiaries and the Constitutional rights

and contractual duties of the Public Trustees. This is

where the Public Trustee DUTIES originate.

To date although petitioner is a sovereign, Perry,

supra, he is currently operating in a diminished

capacity by allowing the “common-law trustee” to

maintain “legal title” control in the nature of Title 28

USC §581 - United States trustees. This is where the

premises of Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936),

come into play, “One who thus accepts the benefits of

a statute is estopped to assert that it is valid.” The

case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938),

flipped the presumption of operating within the

Constitutional Republic of the 1787 Constitutional

contract versus the 1871 CORPORATE MUNICIPAL

contract, Woodbury, supra. It now begs the question

for this 18 year old whether he should revoke “Legal

Title” away from the “common-law trustee” and her

minions (Pam Bondi, current office holder) and revest

it back to petitioner thereby merging (merger rule,

Restatement of the Law, 2nd, Trusts) “Legal” and

“Equitable” title to collapse the presumption as it may

have become a “breach of domestic tranquility” to the

existing CORPORATE MINICIPAL governmental

trust relationship.

STANDING becomes an issue whether petitioner is

operating as an adult “minor” (Title 31 CFR §363.6) or

revests title and makes claim to his securities held by

the “custodian” at the U.S. Treasury (Title 31 CFR

§363.6, “account” defined) and becomes a “Secured

Party” creditor (SPC) in relation to his banker, the

U.S. Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, current office

holder.

In Osborn, supra, it demonstrates the perils of a

sovereign operating in a diminished capacity. If this

petition is ignored

as so many have been regarding jurisdictional issues

should petitioner be forced to rely upon the Biblical

“Esther” option (P.L. 97-280) 2nd Amendment as ruled

upon in NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) against

danger Public Trustees running about with syringes?

Although this particular vaccination may or may not

alter one’s DNA the case of Assoc, for Molecular

Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576

(2013) was very clear that the vaccine patent holder

owns the “container” as it now contains patented

biological property. Thus enters the 13th Amendment

violations without a “packet insert” and full disclosure

of the vaccination issuer over at “Big Pharma.”

This then also raises the fact that citizenship is a

personal property right pursuant to the finding in

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), whereby

“Congress has no power under the Constitution to

divest a person of his United States citizenship absent

his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell,

supra, overruled. Pp. 256’268.” Therein, citizenship is

a “personal property” right. Is Petitioner supposed to

discharge every commercial paper liability on the

planet,

get international recognition of Private

International Sovereign status and file with the

International Court of Justice to obtain relief? The

founders were pretty clear in the Declaration of

independence where they stated for the protection of

“life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” That last one

has been found by this court to mean property. The

most fundamental property belonging to petitioner is

his “container” i.e. his physical body.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), that that

anything in conflict with the supreme law of the land

is null and void of law, “An act of congress repugnant

to the constitution is not law.”, “When the constitution

and an act of congress are in conflict, the constitution

must govern the case to which both apply.”

In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, it was stated

that rules set forth by a state or federal legislative

body that restrict constitutional rights are patently

unconstitutional, “Congress may not authorize the

States to violate the Equal Protection Clause.”, “If a

law has ‘no other purpose . . . than to chill the

assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those

who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently

unconstitutional.’ United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S.

570, 581 (1968).”

In Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Jones

v. City of Opelika), 319 U.S. 105 (1943), the finding

was that “no state may convert a secured liberty into

a privilege.”, “A state may not impose a charge for the

enjoyment of a right

granted by

the

federal

constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for

the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce

(McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33, 56-58,

60 S.Ct. 388, 397, 398, 128 A.L.R. 876), although it

may tax the property used in, or the income derived

from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not

discriminatory.”

United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973) and

Miller v. United States, 230 F2nd 486, defines

willfulness as "with evil motive or bad purpose either

to disobey or to disregard the law."

In regard to how a right shall be interpreted, Title 16

Am Jur 2d Section 97 states “it shall be interpreted in

my favor because I am the clearly intended and

expressly designated beneficiary whose citizens were

for the protected actions, rights and property,” Byars

v. U. S., 273 U.S. 28 (1927).

Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan ruled in

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) when he gave

the following dissenting opinion: “Two national

governments exist; one to be maintained under the

Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be

maintained by Congress outside and independently of

with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every

person who shall make any contract or engage in any

combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be

illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on

conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not

exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any

other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not

exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in

the discretion of the court.”

Respondent WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH is a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION violated

petitioner’s rights.

MEDICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Jonathan Moreland was a minor child when the first

filing was made. The West Virginia Department of

Health and /or the West Virginia Public school knew

or should have known that the Vaccine had no proof of

working; nor less was an experimental drug and

denied petitioner’s filing exemption.

MENINGITIS

VACCINE:

This

vaccine

contraindicated for the name because it contains the

chemical

compound,

Diphtheria Toxoid.

ingredient, it is a carrier protein for polysaccharides

and haptens to make them immunogenic. The toxicity

of Diphtheria Toxoid (CRM 19 7) can cause damage to

yeast cells and some mammalian cell lines. Haptens

are small molecules that elicit an immune response

when attached to a large carrier such as a protein; and

they

activate responses involving inflammatory

cytokines. Examples of post market side adverse

effects, associated with this vaccine include (not

limited too)-Blood and Lymphatic System Disorders,

Lymphadenopathy,

Immune

Hypersensitivity reactions

System

such

Disorders,

as anaphylaxis/

anaphylactic reaction, wheezing, difficulty breathing,

upper airway swelling, urticaria, erythema, pruritus,

and hypotension. This presents a clear medical danger

to name because these toxins would be exacerbated by

the introduction of this substance to petitioner’s body.

Supporting studies/evidence^ Neisseria meningitidis

group a capsular polysaccharide diphtheria toxoid

conjugate antigen, Neisseria meningitidis group c

capsular polysaccharide diphtheria toxoid conjugate

antigen, Neisseria meningitidis group y capsular

polysaccharide diphtheria Toxoid conjugate antigen,

and Neisseria meningitidis group w-135 capsular

polysaccharide diphtheria toxoid conjugate antigen

injection, solution

httpsV/dailymed,nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/druglnfo.cfm?

setid=4d8781fl-9366-462c6e958f44fcb4&audience=:consumer-Sll

Meningococcal

(Groups

Menactra,

and

W'135)

Polysaccharide Diphtheria Toxid Conjugate Vaccine.

httDs7Zwww.vaccineshopDe.com/assets/pdf/vsh/Di/me

nactrapi.pdf

LABLE MENACTRA: Neisseria meningitidis group a

capsular polysaccharide diphtheria toxoid conjugate

antigen, Neisseria meningitidis group c capsular

polysaccharide diphtheria toxoid conjugate antigen,

Neisseria

meningitidis

group

capsular

polysaccharide diphtheria Toxoid conjugate antigen,

and Neisseria meningitidis group w-135 capsular

polysaccharide diphtheria toxoid conjugate antigen

injection, solution

httpsV/dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/druglnfo.cfm?

setid=4d8781fl-9366-462c-

6e958f44fcb4&audience-consumer-S 11

Menactra, Meningococcal (Groups A, C, Y and W-135)

Polysaccharide Diphtheria Toxid Conjugate Vaccine.

https7/www.vaccineshoDDe.com/assets/pdf/vsh/pi/me

nactrapi.pdf

MENINGOCOCCAL

SEROGROUP

VACCINATION: This vaccine is contraindicated for

name because it contains an ingredient, Fe gamma

receptor and transporter (FCGRT). This gene encodes

a receptor that binds immunoglobulin G; and also

binds immunoglobulin G to protect the antibody from

degradation. Due to alternative splicing caused by

interaction with various ingredients in the vaccine,

multiple transcript variant can occur, and trigger

autoimmune

reactions.

Disease

associated

with

FCGRT is Myasthenia gravis. Myasthenia gravis

(MG) is a chronic autoimmune disorder in which

antibodies destroy the communication between nerves

and muscle, resulting in weakness of the skeletal

muscles. Myasthenia gravfs affects the voluntary

muscles of the body, especially those that control the

eyes, mouth, throat, and limbs. The disease can strike

anyone at any age. A myasthenia gravis crisis can

involve difficulty in swallowing or breathing. The

cause of myasthenia gravis is unknown and there is

cure.

encoded

*The

transfers

protein

immunoglobulin G antibodies from mother to fetus

across the placenta. This presents a clear medical

danger to name because these toxins would be

exacerbated

introduction

his/her

body.

Meningococcal group B vaccine Side Effects

https7/www.drugs.com/sfx/meningococcal~group~b~

vaccine~side~effects.html Post Marketing ADVERSE

EFFECTS ~ Menactra, Meningococcal (Groups A, C, Y

and

W~135)

Polysaccharide

Conjugate Vaccine. *

Blood

Diphtheria

and

Toxoid

Lymphatic

System Disorders Lymphadenopathy * Immune

System Disorders * Hypersensitivity reactions such as

anaphylaxis/anaphylactic

reaction,

wheezing,

difficulty breathing, upper airway swelling, urticaria,

erythema, pruritus, hypotension *Nervous System

Disorders

syndrome,

*Guillain-Bar

paresthesia,

vasovagal syncope, dizziness, convulsion, facial palsy,

acute disseminated • encephalomyelitis, transverse

myelitis*

Musculoskeletal and Connective Tissue

Disorders Myalgia *

General

Disorders

and

Administrative Site Conditions

Large

injection

site

reactions,

extensive

swelling of the injected limb (may be associated with

erythema, warmth, tenderness or pain at the injection

site). Menactra*, Meningococcal (Groups A, C, Y and

W-135) Polysaccharide Diphtheria Toxoid Conjugate

Vaccine

https7/www.vaccineshoppe.com/assets/pdf/vsh/pi/me

nactrapi.pdf Adverse effects

*Diphtheria toxin currently used as a carrier protein

for polysaccharides and haptens to make them

immunogenic. There is some dispute about the toxicity

of CRM197, with evidence that it is toxic to yeast cells

and

some

cell

mammalian

lines. [3]

https7Zen.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRM197

*Haptens

Are small molecules that elicit an immune response

only when attached to a large carrier such as a protein

Haptens Initially activate innate immune responses

by complex mechanisms involving inflammatory

cytokines,

(DAMP),

damage-associated

molecular patterns

the

inflammasome.

https7/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapten

*Diphtheria Toxin Binds to the Epidermal Growth

Factor (EGF)-like Domain of Human Heparin-binding

EGF- like Growth Factor/Diphtheria Toxin Receptor

and Inhibits Specifically Its Mitogenic Activity^)

https7/www.ibc.org/article/S0021-9258(18)82959-

3/fulltext

*Neisseria

compound summary

meningitidis

chemical

https://pubchem.ncbi.nIm.nih.gov/compound/Neisseri

a-meningitidis FDA National Drug Code Directory:

*This is not FDA approved 0268-67101965-01-01

INJECTION, SOLUTION .05 g/mL ALK-Abello, Inc.

Product ndc": "0268-6710", generic name": "Chinese

Elm" - brand name": "ULMUS PUMILA POLLEN"

https://api.fda.gov/drug/ndc.ison?search=product%20

ndc:%220268-6710%22

*WARNING This product is intended for use by

physicians who are experienced in the administration

of allergenic extracts and the emergency care of

anaphylaxis, or for use under the guidance of an

allergy specialist. As with all allergenic extracts,

severe systemic reactions may occur. Jn certain

individuals these life-threatening reactions may

result in death. Fatalities associated with skin testing

have been reported. Patients should be observed for at

least 20 - 30 minutes following testing. Emergency

measures and adequately trained personnel should be

immediately available in the

event of a life

threatening reaction. Patients with unstable asthma

or steroid dependent asthmatics and patients with

underlying cardiovascular disease are at greater risk

to a fatal outcome from a systemic allergic reaction.

It is a crime to use economic coercion, losing one's

economic livelihood, education i.e., their job, for failing

to take an “injection” when long-term damage may

result. It is a crime to coerce someone into being

subjected to taking an injection for an alleged disease,

even absurdly, “the boogie-man”, when it comes to a

risk of less than 1% for death ... if it does not work and

may even possibly cause an insertion of unknown

elements into one's head where the brain is located.

Testing even once under such coercion (economic,

political, societal, legal, etc.) is a problem. Injection(s)

testing constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

under the 8th Amendment, even if it were legal to do

so, which it is not. There is no other property right

sacred

than

one's

bodily

integrity.

Notwithstanding any other law, an establishment, as

defined in subdivision (b), shall require each person

who is eligible to receive the injection and show proof

to a school! employee or authorized agent of the

establishment that the person has been vaccinated

against Parent(s) religious beliefs.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Moreland

This document was prepared by:

Shawn T. Rice, J.D. (Fed. Tr. Cir. Ct. #86082)

Private International Sov#3773700, Den Haag

Shawn Rice and Associates

c/o- 28039 Scott Road, Unit D-350

Murrieta, California [92563]

July 2025

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.