to the People's First Amendment Petitions for
We've got a Plan to fight back.
“If money is wanted by Rulers
who have in any manner oppressed
they may retain it
until their grievances are redressed,
and thus peaceably procure relief,
without trusting to despised petitions
or disturbing the public tranquility.”
Government has abandoned
the Rule of Law as defined by the People
via the Constitution.
The numerous crises currently confronting our Republic are
not the result of poor political policies. These evils are
the direct result of decades of violations of
the U.S. Constitution by our servant Government.
In defiance of the natural Sovereignty of the People,
the Government has steadfastly, and repeatedly, ignored the Petitions of
the People seeking Redress for these most egregious violations of their
Fundamental Rights and cherished Freedoms.
The tide of history is upon
us. Our Liberty may soon be forever lost unless the People rise quickly,
peacefully and forcefully to restore Constitutional Order to the
Thankfully, our Founders left us a powerful, but little-known weapon in the Law to
peacefully secure Redress without
relying upon fixed elections, corrupted courts or resorting to the
exercise of the Right of Revolution embodied by the Second Amendment.
It's time to get organized and exercise this profound Constitutionally
Acta non verba.
B. Serve the Petitions
for Redress of
June 30th -
Details Formally serve the Petitions
for Redress upon
every U.S. Representative and Senator at their local
(state) congressional District offices.
C. Federal litigation:
the last 10 words really mean?
A limited number of
volunteer Plaintiffs will initiate
a federal lawsuit in each of the (11) Appellate
The purpose is to force the federal Judiciary,
particular, each of the U.S. Courts of Appeal,
provide a formal judicial declaration of the
meaning of the First Amendment Petition clause.
Watch this short
of Bob Schulz from the historic Colonial Inn in Concord, MA where the
first shots of the 1776 Revolution were fired.
Schulz provides highlights
of the Right-to-Petition initiative
and a brief overview
of "Project Revolution."
In January 2008, after almost 5 years of litigation,
U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the landmark WTP lawsuit seeking a Judicial declaration
- for the first time in history
- of the Constitutional
meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment.
By failing to hear the case,
the Judiciary treasonously abdicated its primary constitutional function
and legal duty, i.e., to interpret the Constitution.
Click here to access ALL
the materials from the landmark RTP lawsuit, including the links below:
Our First Petition for
The Income Tax Fraud
the WTP Foundation commenced
a multi-year research
to investigate well documented claims that
the Income Tax system is
a legal fraud upon the
People and enforced without any Constitutional authority.
significant substance to the claims of numerous tax law researchers,
attorneys, and constitutional scholars familiar with details of the
fraud, in 2000 the Foundation began to serve a series of Petitions upon
the U.S. Government for Redress of Grievances, challenging it to provide
official answers to the hundreds of specific legal questions posed in
Aside from legal harassment by the Government & IRS
in their efforts to suppress the publication and widespread
dissemination of this potent legal research, the People
have yet to
receive any response to the Petitions.
Watch the 4-minute video of former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson evading
a direct question asking him to cite the specific U.S. law requiring
payment of income taxes:
Here are some of our Petitions for Redress
regarding the income Tax Fraud:
DOJ Dismisses all criminal
the "OMB" evidence is raised as
the sole defense
at a federal criminal income
tax trial. Be sure to review the linked
research, legal exhibits, etc.
The Income Tax Petition for
Be sure to access the
Attachment containing over 500+ legal
facts over 14 areas of inquiry challenging the
income tax fraud. To this day, the Government refuses to
directly refute or rebut any of this
compelling legal research.