  |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
August 31, 2005
On July 19th
last year, the landmark Right-To-Petition lawsuit was filed in Washington DC
seeking a declaration of the full contours of the meaning of the Petition
clause of the First Amendment – including whether the People have an
unalienable Right to peacefully hold their Government accountable by
withholding their money until their grievances are redressed, if the
government violates the Constitution and refuses to respond to the People’s
Petitions for Redress.
On the
advice of our legal counsel,
Mark Lane,
we did not immediately press the Court on the issue of a temporary
injunction by filing a separate motion for immediate temporary relief.
Attorney Lane did not want to risk the core case on the outcome of an
ancillary motion for a temporary injunction against the government. Mark Lane’s advice was that we wait until after the government’s expected motion to dismiss was fully briefed by both sides.
On October 1, 2004 the government responded to our complaint with a Motion to Dismiss. On November 12 we filed our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On December 21 (after requesting additional time) the government replied to our opposition. This reply included a blatant misrepresentation of evidence proffered by the Government and it improperly raised new legal issues. On January 10, 2005, we filed a motion requesting the opportunity to file a Sur-reply. The motion was granted. On February 28, 2005 we filed our Sur-reply.
Our
Complaint is an action for declaratory relief by constraining the
defendants to meet their obligations under the Constitution by responding
with specific, official answers to the reasonable questions put forth by
Plaintiffs in their Petitions for Redress of Grievances, regarding
constitutional torts involving violations of the U.S. Constitution’s war
powers, taxing, money, “privacy” and due process clauses (Plts’ Amend. Comp.
65). The government moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Congress has not authorized this manner of petition against the “sovereign” government” (Defs' Mot. 13), the government does not have to “listen or respond to Plaintiffs’ petitions” (Defs' Mot. 15), Plaintiffs’ claims of retaliation are “legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations” (Defs' Mot. 19), and Congress did not authorize People to enforce their Rights through the retention of money “as an avenue for the relief sought” (Defs' Mot. 23). In our Opposition, we argued that the Petition Clause operates as a constitutional antidote to the doctrine of sovereign immunity (Plts’ Opp. 3), the enumeration of the Right to Petition in the First Amendment cannot be construed to deny Plaintiffs’ Right to a response – that is, the government is implicitly obligated under the Constitution to respond by providing specific answers, just as the government is implicitly obligated under the 26th Amendment to respond by counting the votes of people who have voted (Plts’ Opp.10), that the issue of “Impermissible Retaliation” is a material issue of fact, (Plts’ Opp. 26) and, the Right of Petition does not depend upon Congress for its enforceability and survives the schema of any act of Congress that infringes or abridges its guarantees (Plts’ Opp. 21). In its Reply, the Government raised new arguments: government’s response to Plaintiffs’ Petitions does not have to be “adequate” (Defs' Reply 2); the government has responded to Plaintiffs’ Petitions (Defs' Reply 5 fn 4); and, Plaintiffs have no Right to enforce their Rights by retaining their money because “Plaintiffs can cite no case in which such a right is recognized…[and] history is replete with those who have sought to engage in civil disobedience by violating our nation’s tax laws” (Defs' Reply 6). Because the government had raised new issues in its Reply Brief and it had made a material and deliberate misrepresentation to the Court by falsely claiming the document “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments” distributed by the IRS was an official publication of the U.S. Government and that the document answered the questions contained within the income tax Petition for Redress, we filed a motion for permission to file a Sur-Reply. The government objected. Our motion was granted. In our Sur-Reply (and its Attachment) we argued: that the People have a natural Right of access to the government and that the access must be "adequate, effective, and meaningful" to comport with the Constitution (Plts' Sur-Reply 2); Defendants have not provided a scintilla of evidence in support of the notion that any, much less all of the questions Plaintiffs have included in their four Petitions for Redress, have been answered by the government (Plts' Sur-Reply 3); and finally, the absence of case law does not eviscerate the People’s Natural Right to rely on the protection of the Constitution in constraining the extra-judicial actions of the government (Plts' Sur-Reply 4).
By
February 28th, 2005 the matter was fully briefed. We were confident that the
Court would soon decide the government’s motion to dismiss.
Tax Collector Showing No Respect While waiting for the Court to decide the government’s motion to dismiss, we learned that one IRS agent was initiating enforcement actions against several People solely because they were affiliated with WTP and were Plaintiffs. The agent admitted, on the record, that his regional office sent him a list of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have since sued the IRS and the agent in their federal District Court to put an end to those enforcement actions. The cases are currently pending. We have been growing concerned about the length of time it is taking the Court to decide the government’s motion to dismiss. As the axiom goes, “justice delayed is justice denied.” In addition, while waiting for the Court to decide the motion, we have been hearing from many other Plaintiffs about IRS enforcement actions being taken against them. This is dead wrong and we are preparing to motion the Court to address the issue head on. The government knows who the Plaintiffs are. The government should be respecting Plaintiffs ’ Due Process Rights by refraining from enforcing the Internal Revenue Code against Plaintiffs, at least until the Court issues a declaration of the Rights of the Plaintiffs under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, including the Plaintiffs’ Right to an honest response from the government and the Right to retain their money until their grievances are redressed. This is particularly true because one of the Plaintiffs’ four Petitions for Redress seeks answers to questions regarding the government’s legitimate powers under the taxing clauses of the Constitution, including the 16th Amendment. That Petition also seek answers regarding the enforcement provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, which although properly applicable to many types of taxes and “income,” cannot be forcibly applied to wages, salaries and other forms of compensation and remuneration for an individual’s labor, without violating the individual’s natural, unalienable Rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the IRS is not leaving the Plaintiffs alone. The IRS is
not showing any respect for the judicial status of the Plaintiffs. The
IRS is not waiting for the DC District
Court’s determination of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Petition Clause. Adding injury to injury, by further violating Plaintiffs’ Due Process Rights, the IRS is leapfrogging over certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code – to which it is bound by law. By ignoring key Due Process provisions of the Code, the IRS is in direct violation of the law and Plaintiff's Rights as it attempts to collect what it alleges Plaintiffs owe under the IRS's self-interested and defective interpretation of the Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code. Given the IRS’s ongoing, impermissible retaliations against Plaintiffs, and the length of time it is taking the Court to make its historical decision, we have decided it is now necessary to file a motion with the Court for an Order:
6. Granting any other, non-financial relief to the Plaintiffs that to
the Court may seem just and proper. RTP Lawsuit Plaintiff Survey
To prevail on our motion for a
blanket injunction, we need to provide sufficient
documentary evidence in support of our argument that the IRS is now applying
force against Plaintiffs, inflicting harm and irreparable injury, leading to
a pyrrhic victory for Plaintiffs. To facilitate this task, we need every
Plaintiff to complete our on-line Plaintiffs’ Survey ASAP. However, the following is a list of a few of the Due Process related provisions of the Code that the IRS appears to be ignoring and should be held accountable for:
Click here to verify your Plaintiff profile
|
