  |
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 15, 2006WTP Forcing Numerous High Courts toGrapple With The Meaning of The Petition Clause
Truth: The People instituted government “to secure these Rights,” no more or less. Truth: The People instituted written constitutions to prohibit government from doing more or less. Truth: The People have a Right to hold government accountable to these written constitutions. Truth: The People have a “Right to Petition the government for Redress” of constitutional torts. Truth: The People have a Right of Response from government to these Petitions for Redress. Truth: The People have a Right to “alter the government” when it fails to respond to such Petitions. Truth: The People have a Right of Enforcement of their Rights. Truth: The People have a Right to retain their money until their grievances are Redressed. The truths etched above form nothing less than the cornerstone upon which our form of governance exists and which distinguish it from every other form of government ever designed by man. Indeed, it is solely through these Founding Principles that men can peacefully enjoy their natural dominion over servant governments and keep safe the blessings of Liberty. No less than the United States Supreme Court and three federal Appeals Courts are now grappling with these fundamental truths in four separate cases initiated by Bob Schulz and the We The People Foundation. In
the coming weeks, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court and the
Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC, Second and Ninth
Circuits will, for the first time in history, address these truths as
they relate to the Petition Clause of the First Amendment.
These We The People cases specifically challenge very dangerous, but widely
accepted judicial doctrines that have evolved over the course of our
nation’s history, and which in totality, have (at least according to the
Government’s attorneys) removed the government beyond the accountability of
the People who created it. The
constitutional showdown for the First Amendment Right to Petition has now
reached our nation’s highest courts. For
the next ten days, the justices of the United States Supreme Court
will be coming to grips with these truths as the justices decide whether
to grant certiorari for Robert Schulz’s legal Petition regarding his
exercise of the First Amendment Right to Petition.
Schulz v. Washington County Board of Supervisors
was filed after the County Supervisors refused to respond to Schulz’s proper
Petition for Redress of Grievances regarding an unconstitutional Act that
purportedly “authorized” the County to assess and use the property tax to
pay the debt and other obligations of a Project constructed and financed by
an Industrial Development Authority. In responding to the lawsuit, and rather than confronting the merits of Schulz’s claim regarding his Rights and the obligations of the County under the Petition Clause, the County has argued, in effect, that an Act of Congress (the Tax Injunction Act) trumps the Constitution, depriving the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction. This of course, subsequently denies Schulz any legal recourse against the County’s admitted constitutional tort. Schulz has argued before the United States Supreme Court that no act of Congress can trump the Constitution, and that the higher order constitutional questions of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the government under the Petition Clause must be determined by the Court before the Court determines the question of the obligations of the People and the limited immunities by the government under the Tax-Injunction Act. RIGHT-Click here to download a copy of Bob’s Petition to the United States Supreme Court that was filed on April 14, 2006. (386 KB .pdf) The County has waived its right to file a response. RIGHT-Click for the Appendix to the filing. (309 KB .pdf)
Click
here
for the newspaper article about this case that we posted on January 6, 2006. In
addition to the property tax case, the Judges of the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals are coming to grips with these truths now that all the briefs
have been filed in We The People v
United States.
In
its April response brief to the Court of Appeals the government argues most
strenuously for, and relies completely upon, a claim of “Sovereign Immunity”
against We the People. In short, the government openly asserts that it
possesses absolute immunity from its own People -- even for the commission
of constitutional torts. The government argues that because Congress
has not authorized this kind of lawsuit via federal legislation, that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of sovereign
immunity. In our Reply Brief, the People refute these hollow and dangerous assertions and establish that in America, and under the Constitution of the United States of America, the concept of government immunity is, and by legal design, must be a myth. We argue that in a legal sense, sovereign immunity cannot exist without practically “upending” our Constitution and depriving the People of their most fundamental Right -- i.e., the Right to dominion over their servant governments and that any assertion by the Government to such sovereign immunity is an anti-constitutional and unlawful usurpation of power. In
sum, the Plaintiff’s Reply brief to the DC Circuit asks the appellate court
to recognize that sovereign immunity is a myth, that no act of Congress can
trump the Constitution, and that the higher order constitutional questions
of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the government under the
Petition Clause must be determined by the Court before the Court
determines the question of the obligations of the People and the limited
privileges and immunities the government may enjoy under the Internal
Revenue Code, including the Anti-Injunction Act. The Judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals are also confronting the above truths as a consequence of Celauro v United States. In
Celauro, the three plaintiffs (from Long Island, New York) are also
plaintiffs in We The People v
United States.
Like many of the other plaintiffs in that landmark case, the Celauro
plaintiffs have been exercising their Right of Enforcement by retaining
their money until the government responds to their Petitions for Redress of
Grievances regarding constitutional torts. The Celauro plaintiffs are arguing that by levying the wages and bank accounts of people who are exercising their Rights under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, the government is abridging the Right of the plaintiffs to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances. The Celauro plaintiffs are also arguing that the IRS lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiffs under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the federal Constitution. The Celauro Plaintiffs are arguing before the Second Circuit that sovereign immunity is a myth, that no act of Congress can trump the Constitution, and that the higher order constitutional questions of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the government under the Petition Clause must be determined by the Court before the Court determines the question of the obligations of the People and the privileges of the government under the Internal Revenue Code.
RIGHT-Click here
for a copy of the Celauro’s Brief to the Court that was filed on May 7,
2006. (390KB .pdf) The judges in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals are also coming to grips with these truths in yet another federal case brought by Bob Schulz where Schulz is again seeking to quash IRS administrative Summonses. In
2005, the Second Circuit issued its clarion decisions (Schulz I and
Schulz II) in Schulz v IRS, a case involving IRS
administrative Summonses served directly on Schulz, demanding books, records
and other materials. Rather than bring Schulz to Court to enforce the Summons and endure a full adversarial, and public civil proceeding (including “discovery”, i.e., depositions, interrogatories, etc.), and run the risks of being held publicly accountable for its specious claims regarding the promotion of an “abusive tax shelter” or of being forced to contend with the prospect of officially defending their deprivation of Schulz’s Right to Petition and his Right of Enforcement via withholding taxes, the IRS decided, instead, to serve Summonses on third parties to obtain the information. In short, the IRS served third party summonses on two New York citizens, seeking the very same information, (without a court order), that the IRS was explicitly denied from obtaining, on Due Process grounds, directly from Schulz by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Schulz is arguing before the Second Circuit that sovereign immunity is a myth, that no act of Congress can trump the Constitution, and that the higher order constitutional questions of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the government under the Petition Clause must be determined by the Court before the Court determines the question of the obligations of the People and the privileges of the government under the Internal Revenue Code. RIGHT-Click here for a copy of Schulz’s Reply Brief to the Court that was filed on May 10, 2006. (292 KB)
As he is before the Second Circuit, Schulz is arguing before the Ninth Circuit that sovereign immunity is a myth, that no act of Congress can trump the Constitution, and that the higher order constitutional questions of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the government under the Petition Clause must be determined by the Court before the Court determines the question of the obligations of the People and the privileges of the government under the Internal Revenue Code.
Bob’s Reply Brief is due to be filed in the Ninth Circuit next week. Send this update to your friends
Please remember, there is much to do and it is only through your generous
support that our vitally important work moves forward.
Learn more about WTP's Landmark Right-to-Petition Lawsuit
|
