Now to a casual objective observer Mrs. Bond
would probably look like a " people" even if she
does have a bad temper so to speak.
But if the Supreme Court
happens to agree with the 3 rd Circuit Appeals court, for legal purposes under the 10 th Amendment, Mrs. Bond
and all of ya'll will no longer be considered " people."
The case is certainly out of the ordinary:
Carol Anne Bond is a trained microbiologist, who worked as a technical assistant at Rohm and Haas . See United States v. Bond , 581 F.3d 128, 132 (3rd Cir. 2009).
's best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, became pregnant, and Bond discovered that the father of the child was her husband, Clifford Bond.
See id. After this discovery, Carol Anne Bond
began to spread chemicals around Haynes's home, including on doorknobs, on car door handles, and in her
See id. at 133.
continued spreading chemicals over several months, doing so on at least twenty-four occasions.
had stolen the chemical 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine from her
employer and ordered a vial of potassium dichromate on the Internet.
See id. at 132.
Haynes discovered the chemicals in most cases and avoided harm, but in one case she
See id. at 133.
Haynes complained to the police about the chemicals, and the police suggested that she
wipe door handles clean before using them in the future.
See Bond , 581 F.3d at 133.Haynes then took the matter to the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) and reported the presence of chemicals on her
The postal inspectors placed surveillance cameras on Haynes's property, and caught Bond
taking a business envelope out of Haynes's mailbox and placing potassium dichromate in Haynes's car muffler.
The postal inspectors traced the potassium dichromate to a storage center at Rohm
The police obtained an arrest warrant for Bond
based on the videos, the missing chemicals at Rohm
, and a chemical analysis of the substance in Haynes's muffler.
See Bond , 581 F.3d at 133.
nce in a holding cell in the Philadelphia Post Office, Bond
constitutional rights and admitted to taking the chemicals from Rohm
The police executed a search warrant of Bond's home and discovered chemicals as well as Haynes's mail.
A grand jury charged Bond
with two counts of possession and use of a chemical weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229(a)(1) , which implements American obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention
of 1993 . See id.
was also charged with two counts of mail theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 . See id.
moved to dismiss the chemical weapons charges, arguing that Section 229(a)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates principles of federalism and the guarantee of fair notice under the Due Process Clause . See id. at 133-34.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion.
Bond also argued that the search of her
home was illegal, but the court held that there was probable cause for the search See id.
then pled guilty to all charges.
See id. At sentencing , the court increased her
charges by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 , and sentenced her
to six years imprisonment.
appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 229(a)(1) violates the Tenth Amendment as an unconstitutional intrusion of federal power into areas of state sovereignty.
See id. at 136-38.
The court rejected the Tenth Amendment claim on the grounds that Bond
lacked standing as a private party to claim that the federal government had impinged on state sovereignty.
See id. at 136.
appealed to the Supreme Court
, arguing that the Third Circuit was incorrect in concluding that she
did not have standing to sue for an infringement of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, and the Court granted certiorari on October 12, 2010.
See Bond v. United States , 131 S. Ct. 455 (2010).