Notice of Congress Indirectly Abridging First Amendment and Demand to Restore First Amendment Right to Petition by Writ of Error
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
I, ___________________, one of the people (as seen in the 50 American States), republican in form, Sui Juris, do serve you, the Justices of the Supreme Court, this Notice, by Necessity, so that you do provide immediate due care;
Please take Notice that I ask: “Can Congress indirectly abridge the First Amendment?”
Please take Notice that We the People have responsibly assembled and know that the First Amendment includes petitioning the Supreme Court by writ of error;
Please take Notice that People ratified the First Amendment to prohibit Congress from abridging their right to petition. (see evidence below):
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Maxim: “Things derogatory to the common law are not to be drawn into precedent.” Branch. Princ.
Please take Notice that on June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court admitted that it once accepted writs of error when it wrote, “Traditionally, the “most usual modes of exercising appellate jurisdiction” were “by a writ of error, or by an appeal.” (T.M. v. Univ. MD Med System Corporation, No. 25-197, 608 U.S. __ (2026)).
Please take Notice that the Supreme Court then explained that it functions differently today by taking a different kind of writ, when it wrote, “Today, this Court usually exercises appellate jurisdiction by writs of certiorari. 28 U.S.C. 1257(a), 1254(1).” (ibid).
Maxim: “When anything is prohibited directly, it is prohibited also indirectly.” Co. Litt. 223.
Please take Notice that on June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court tacitly acknowledged that it functions differently today than it did at ratification, but did not fully disclose that Congress indirectly abridged the First Amendment by ending the writ of error in 1928 [45 Stat. 54]. Under common law, writs of error had to be granted. This is why when the First Amendment was ratified, the People’s right to petition included using a writ of error as the guaranteed way to get the Supreme Court to help. People understood that if every lower court got things wrong, the First Amendment guaranteed that their petition by writ of error forced the Supreme Court to fix those mistakes. But when Congress abolished writs of error, it changed the Supreme Court’s power to hear appeals, so that today the People cannot use the First Amendment’s original path by writ of error, because Congress funnels petitions into a path (writ of certiorari) that lets the Supreme Court reject petitions. This means that the Supreme Court today rejects First Amendment petitions by writ of error, which is why getting the Court to hear a case now feels like playing the lottery. (see evidence below):
Maxim: “It is the duty of justices to administer justice to every one pleading before them.” 2 Inst. 451.
Please take Additional Notice that on July 28, 2026, a Supreme Court clerk rejected a First Amendment petition by writ of error. The clerk wrote: “You may seek review of a decision only by filing a timely petition for writ of certiorari” (see the image below). Acting for the Supreme Court, the clerk used congressional provision to deny access to the Court [28 USC 1254, 1257]. This shows that Congress decides who accesses the Supreme Court in violation of separation of powers. (see evidence below)
Maxim: “He who does a thing by another is considered as doing it himself.” Broom, Max. 817, 818, et. seq.; 1 Bl. Comm. 429; Story, Ag. s. 440; Co. Litt. 258; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1273; Comm. v. Dewitt, 10 Mass. 155.
Please take Final Notice that it is therefore my wish, order and demand that the Supreme Court restore separation of powers by taking petitions by writ of error according to the First Amendment, and that this Court openly rebuke the Congress for meddling in its business, and that this Court show its good faith by taking the July 28, 2026 petition by writ of error and give due process of law. If any Justice of the Supreme Court believes that Congress has the authority to abolish writs of error, he or she may show that constitutional provision, supported by affidavit sworn under penalty of perjury within ten (10) days receipt of this Notice, or by tacit acquiescence, the Justices of the Supreme Court agree that all written herein is truth, and that hereafter any writ of error submitted according to the First Amendment that is rejected by a Clerk or this Court shall stand as the Justices of the Supreme Court violating the People’s First Amendment right to petition with full knowledge, malice, and intent to breach the trust of the Constitution. This Notice is sent to you in the peace and love of Jesus Christ, so that you return to fundamental form and correct errors in law as the People’s appropriate guardian of private rights.