|
Send this update to your friends
May 15,
2006
WTP Forcing Numerous High Courts to
Grapple With The Meaning of The Petition
Clause
Truth: The
People are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
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.
How the Judiciary officially confronts these crucial questions of
constitutional law, Fundamental Rights and popular sovereignty will speak
volumes about the condition of Freedom and ultimately, whether government
of, by, and for the People exists or is merely a quaint anachronism.
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.
Indeed, the legal issues raised in the lawsuits are profound, they have
never been squarely addressed by the federal judiciary, and without question
they have the potential to alter the destiny of this nation.
Although the We The People Foundation has been quietly shepherding these
cases through the lower rungs of the federal court system over several
years, the fruits of this historic litigation are soon to be realized. The
issues have been clarified, the arguments refined, and the lower courts have
spoken.
The
constitutional showdown for the First Amendment Right to Petition has now
reached our nation’s highest courts.
The United States Supreme Court
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.
If, during the justices’ initial conference on May 25, 2006, two of the nine
justices decide they want the Court to hear the case, the matter will be
held over to a conference on June 1st . If, on June 1st,
four of the justices decide they would like to have the Court hear the case,
Schulz will be notified on Monday, June 5th that the
Supreme Court will hear his case against Washington County, New York.
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.
While the County has admitted that the Act is
unconstitutional, the County has nevertheless refused to respond to
Schulz’s Petition for Redress of the Grievance, much less redress the
grievance stemming from the constitutional tort. Having failed to
secure Redress, in 2004 and 2005, Schulz put his property tax money in a
trust naming the County Treasurer as a beneficiary. Schulz informed the
County that the money would stay in the trust account until the County took
the (unconstitutional) Project out of the budget and reduced the property
tax accordingly, or until a Court ruled that the Act was not
unconstitutional. Neither has occurred.
Additionally, the County improperly retaliated against Schulz for
Petitioning, first by adding penalties and interest to the unpaid taxes and
then by unlawfully seizing all right, title and interest to Bob’s home and
property on April 8, 2006.
The County will auction Schulz’s property and home (assessed value $732,000)
on June 17th unless Schulz “repurchases” the property by June
9th by paying the taxes, penalties and interest.
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.
DC Circuit Court of Appeals
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.
This, of course, is the landmark lawsuit brought against the federal
government for its failure to respond to our Petitions for Redress of
constitutional torts regarding the war powers, tax, privacy and money
clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America.
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.
RIGHT-Click here for a copy of the government’s
Response Brief that was filed on April 24th.
(1.5 MB .pdf)
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.
RIGHT-Click here for a copy of the WTP Reply Brief
that was filed on May 8, 2006. (800 KB .pdf)
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
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.
In retaliation, the IRS unlawfully levied their wages and bank accounts, and
furthermore, did so without a court order. The Celauro plaintiffs
sued the United States, their companies, the bank and the IRS.
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.
In that case, the Second Circuit ruled against the U.S. Government,
twice, clearly holding that because of a lack of Due Process, Schulz was
under no legal obligation to comply with an administrative Summons not
backed by a court order, issued pursuant to a full Article III judicial
hearing.
The Second Circuit held that if the IRS wanted Schulz’s books and records
because the IRS believed Schulz’s promotion of the Right to Petition
(including the Right of Enforcement by retaining money to secure Redress)
was equivalent to the promotion of an “abusive tax shelter”, the IRS must
bring a formal action against Schulz in U.S. District Court, where Schulz
would be entitled to a full Due Process adversarial proceeding and hearing
to test the merits of the IRS Summons.
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)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
As with the other high courts, the judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals are also coming to grips with the truths set forth above in yet
one more case brought by Bob Schulz seeking to quash yet another third party
Summons served by the IRS in California. As with the other cases, the IRS is
seeking the same information (without a court order) that the IRS had
previously been prevented from obtaining from Schulz without Due Process by
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
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
|
