Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272 Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) "Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases."   

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. These findings of Constitutional Rights and Equal Protections under the law are paramount for actual justice. 

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it."  The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents." "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." 

Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] "...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual', not his official capacity..."  

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332 "Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application fo the law. 'All men are equal before the law,' "This is a government of laws and not of men,' 'No man is above the law,' are all maxims showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives, and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws. But the framers and adopters of the (Fourtheenth) Amendment were not content to depend... upon the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They therefore embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty."

Owen v. City of Independence (445 U.S. 622, 1980) "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury."  

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his 
individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." 

Monroe v Pape, 365 US 167, 172(1960) An agent of the government who is abusing his position or the power conferred upon him is still acting under the “color of law” and is thus subject to §1983 actions.” 

United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878) WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398;  Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity."  

Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 368, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991). "It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so perform every official act as not to violate constitutional provisions." 

Stock v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 289 In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) "Where a court's power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the structures of the statute."

Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law." 

Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533. “A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity.”  

Perry v. United States, 204 U.S. 330, 358 "I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less bound by the obligation than a private individual would be..." "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."  

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it." "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." 

Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694 Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.  

Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859) "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100 Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted." Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution"

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133

HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can  only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so 
long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (1923) “Whatever springes the state may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the state confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” 

City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 “To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the right itself. But that is not within the power of the State.”  

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) "It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds ludgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution."    

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644 "Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied." The very rules the state has set up when dealing with this situation prevent equal protection and due process and are now being indirectly denied.

Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) Supreme Court Justice Field, "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld."    

Per Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 "All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."    

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) "The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

Per Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis."

Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) "We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted."

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."

Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1885). Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748, (1970) "Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness."

Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962), "Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver."