Welcome to FaithInLaw.com
Explore the intersection of faith and law, offering insights that clarify complex legal matters through a constitutional religious lens.
Faith in Law.Org
Suit of Equity
Hinds v. United States
Supreme Court Case No. 17-1612 https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1612.html
Understanding Religious Jurisprudence
Welcome to FaithInLaw.com, your premier resource for understanding religious jurisprudence.
Our platform delves into the intersection of faith and law, offering insights that clarify complex legal matters through a religious lens.
Explore articles, expert analyses, and discussions tailored for scholars, practitioners, and individuals seeking to harmonize their legal and spiritual lives.
Embrace the synergy of faith and jurisprudence with us.
Featured Insights
Discover our latest articles of litigation and expert analyses on religious jurisprudence.
Suit of Equity
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, JUDGMENT OR DECREE AND FOR ALL WRITS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO THIS CASE AS WELL ISSUE WRITS AGREEABLE TO USAGES & PRINCIPLES OF LAW
No. 4:25-CV-00047 AGF
Hon. District Judge. Audrey G. Fleissig
Appeal-Legal Discussions
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Case # 25-2352 Terry Hinds v. Joseph Biden, Jr., et al or Donald Trump, et al as now pursuant to Fed. R. App P. 43(c)(2)
Constitutional Insights
Explore discussions and insights from our vibrant constitutional standing
Supreme Court Case No. 17-1612
Lawsuit 2017 Argument
Hinds v. United States
Access valuable resources to aid practitioners in the field of our religious liberty jurisprudence
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF AND EXCERPT OF RECORD
Nature of the Action and Relief Sought.
The nature of this case in law and equity with justiciable controversies revolves around free exercise claims of a religious liberty with [P/A]'s FAITH in [LAW] for [LLP] vs [D/A] 's religious motivations of proselyting taxpayers into taxp[r]ayers through, ultra vires acts, inter alia, as an Organized Religion of THEIRS ("[Taxology]") with the endorsement of an Institutionalized Faith in Taxism. ("[Taxism]").
[D/A]'s [Purpose-Driven Life] & [Creed] is using law [THE CODE] respecting an establishment of a religion "CODE". R. Doc. 1, Att 20 at if 18. [P/A]'s reliefs & remedies sought are within 108 claims, counts, claims right owed & causes of action as pleaded in R. Doc. 1 at 83-248; with 13 unanswered questions presented with matters of law & facts in a Brief in Support. R. Doc. 2 at 1033-48.
Substantial federal questions arise within the context of [P/A]' s FAITH in [LAW].
PER CURIAM.
"Terry Hinds appeals the district court’s dismissal, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, of his pro se complaint.. Upon careful review, we agree that the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Laclede Gas Co. v. St. Charles Cty.,
Mo., 713 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review)."
"Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B."
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri -
St. Louis
____________
Submitted: November 10, 2025
Filed: November 14, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OF COURT APPEALS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION & FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMITS FOR "GOOD CAUSE"
For "Good Cause" [P/A] states these key legal arguments:
I. Complex and multifaceted legal issues
Justification:
[P/A]'s FAITH in [LAW] of which is a pivotal point of contention in this free exercise of a religious liberty case.
December 17, 2025
COMBINED PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND
REHEARING EN BANC FOR [P/A]’s SUIT OF EQUITY, A PETITION
The panel’s holding, which is based on an unduly broad application of federal sovereign immunity, expressly repudiates and conflicts with fundamental constitutional principles, precedents, and controlling law as established in the following Supreme Court cases: Langford v. United States 101 U.S. 341, (1879), United States v. Lee 106 U.S. 196, (1882), Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, (1803), United States v. Klein 80 U.S. 128, (1871), Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356, (1886), Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley 211 U.S. 149, (1908), and Loper Bright v. Raimondo 603 U.S. 369, (2024). The full court’s consideration is essential to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions. The panel’s decision represents a departure from established precedents and raises manifest questions of exceptional importance, to wit:
December 18, 2025
LEGAL NOTICE: QUESTIONS PRESENTED – What is it Used For?
“interpretation” and “construction” vs. “intellectualism of indifference”
Authorized by the Court as a Memorandum in Support of Petition for Rehearing
To: The United States Supreme Court & Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the
Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, 8th Circuit Assignment &
Honorable Steven M. Colloton, Chief Judge Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
The following legal notice concerns substantive due process, inter alia, with a vital motion that was denied, without explanation by the Court. This constitutional case of a “first impression” is pursuant to [P/A]’s free exercise of a religious liberty of FAITH in [LAW]. The ensuing concerns, matters & issues articulated as ten questions of exceptional importance presented, to wit:
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Filed April 2, 2026
Contact us
Telephone: (314) 777- 0397
E-mail: alphaomega44@outlook.com
Address: St. Louis, Missouri