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


DONATE to support our work and
obtain the new Right-to-Petition Lawsuit DVD !

We are using the new WTP DVD documentary about the Right-to-Petition lawsuit to encourage donations so the Foundation can fund the substantial costs of prosecuting the RTP issue through the federal appeals process as well as execute the Foundation’s crucial mission in defense of the Constitution.

See The 3-minute Preview:

 Dial-up    DSL/Cable    

If you are having trouble streaming the previews,
RIGHT-Click here and download the preview file (1.2 MB).
 









Please note the preview videos
are lower quality than the actual DVD

Please remember, there is much to do and it is only through your generous support that our vitally important work moves forward. 

We urge all the 1700+ Plaintiffs in the history-making lawsuit, as well as every other WTP supporter to consider making a significant financial commitment so that we may conclude what our organization has begun: The awakening of the soul of America and the reclamation of Freedom.
 
As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense: "We have it in our power to begin the world anew ”

For each donation of $100, we will promptly
 send you the DVD documenting the events
 of the July, 2004 RTP lawsuit kick-off event and WTP protest march through Washington, DC.


Click here to Donate & Obtain the RTP DVD

You can also obtain the video by mail:

WTP Foundation
2458 Ridge Road
Queensbury, NY  12804

    

Learn more about WTP's Landmark  Right-to-Petition Lawsuit