Do Americans have an unenumerated right to retain a full-sized brain?

Questions Presented; This case presents the Bill of Rights of the Constitution as first law. By citing the Ninth Amendment under a duly filed “Notice of ; Constitutional Question” (Document 86 in the district court,) the following Big Repugnancy was previously presented to all parties and intervenors to the underlying case (United States of America, State of Maryland, and State of Virginia; vide Doc. 10 and Doe. 11 in the district court;) “However, we observed a pronounced general shrinkage effect of approximately 20% and a highly significant variation in shrinkage across brain regions. In conclusion, chronic exposure of non-human primates to antipsychotics was associated with reduced brain volume. --University of Pittsburgh Primate Research Facility, (National Library of Medicine, NIH; found at Table of Ninth Amendment Repugnancies, written page 41, ECF page 45 of 158, Doc. 1, root case no. 1:20-cv-00784, USDC EDVA-Alexandria Division)(emphasis added) Ever since “the different parts of the WHOLE United States” have been complicit in the destruction of the brain organ during involuntary detentions in America, there has been a chronic violation of an unquestioned Ninth Amendment right to retain a full sized brain (vide similar effects of homicidal lobotomization, State of Wisconsin v. Jeffrey Dahmer, Case no, F-912542.) The breaking of these first laws of our country creates an ongoing “war against the constitution.” [Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. at 17 (1958)] Questions: 1. Do Americans have an unenumerated right to retain a full sized brain? 2. When the government starts intruding into our private minds with poisons (if even for just one of us disfavored thinkers) isn't the Constitution designed to stop such tyranny from being practiced by an unrestrained and overbearing majority, especially if the majority has graced itself with full sized brains? 3. By causing a one-fell-swoop education of American families, does the posting of a Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts (Federal Rules of Evidence) within nine varied opinions (perhaps concurring in part, perhaps dissenting in part) incent a voluntary public correction of this repugnancy and finally start the rehabilitation of the Ninth Amendment? Ii. Petition for Writ of CertiorariSavoy case no. 22-1112 USCA 4th Cir. | Parties to this Proceeding (wicourtesy provision*) TRUE PARTY Peter Franchot, Comptroller of Maryland c/o Assistant Attorneys General (Brian Oliner) 80 Calvert Street, Rm 308 Post Office Box 519 Annapolis, MD 21404-0519 TRUE PARTY Craig Burns, Virginia Tax Commissioner c/o Office of the Attorney General (Flora Townes Hezel) 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, VA 23219 FEDERAL INTERVENOR (now served at the Supreme Court of the United States) Elizebeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States Room 5616, Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20580-0001 FEDERAL INTERVENOR (predecessor served summons in the district court, Doe. 10, Doe. 11) Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 FEDERAL INTERVENOR (predecessor served summons in the district court, Doc. 10, Doe. 11) Jessica D, Alber, Attorney for the United States, USAO-EDVA | Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building ! 2100 Jamieson Ave . Alexandria, VA 22314 | STATE INTERVENOR (served summons in the district court, Doc. 10, Doc. 11) ! Brian Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 STATE INTERVENOR (predecessor served summons in the district court, Doc. | 10, Doe. 11) 7 Jason Miyares, Attorney General of Virginia 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, VA 23219 *CRIMINAL COMPLAINT filed with FBI Washington Field Office “WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT filed with Senate Committee on the Judiciary iii. Petition for Writ of CertiorariSavoy case no. 22-1112 USCA 4th Cir. Related Court Proceedings 1. A Final Judgment in Maryland (