|
October
10,
2006
Dramatic Developments
For Right-To-Petition
Court of Appeals Hears Oral Arguments,
WTP Files Motion For Injunctive Protection
“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown"
- William Shakespeare, Henry IV (Act III,
Scene I)
’Tis
nothing truer this week following a series of dramatic events regarding
the Right to Petition that are so exceptional and moving they could be
experienced as a dramatic play – the drama of the making of our own history.
Unfortunately this drama
is for real. It is the People who, as protagonist, act upon their divinely
illuminated character. The servant of the People - their government - plays
the antagonist. The conflict is sharp, prolonged and injurious and travels
to lands where the Law can only find resolution in favor of the People.
Upon the stage of engagement tenaciously hangs the backdrop of the
Constitution.
Freedom is the prize to be seized or lost, Liberty the fire which drives the
heart. When the curtain finally falls, the outcome will, win or lose - and
for better or worse, forever determine the fate of the nation and its
People.
This is our unfolding
drama. It is nothing less than the irrepressible conflict, the
perpetual and unavoidable confrontation between men and their servant
governments seeking to grasp and zealously enjoy the fruits of Sovereignty,
but which (unfortunately for the Government), are the Natural, and
unalienable Right of the People.
The events of the last
several weeks, focusing squarely upon our exercise of the First Amendment
Petition for Redress of Grievance have exposed an artful, insolent principle
by which our government has acted against not only the People, but against
Nature itself.
Our government has been
bared in public, their words to read, their voices to be heard, clamoring
deceitfully that it can operate without constitutional restraint and without
judicial review unless it waives, by law, what it says is its “sovereign
immunity.”
As
we have reported, our landmark lawsuit for a declaration of the Rights of
the People under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment has, after two
years reached the United States Court of Appeals in Washington DC.
The matter was fully briefed by May, 2006.
In its Response Brief to the Court, the Government argued first and foremost
that because the Government did not waive its “sovereign immunity,” the
Court had no jurisdiction to hear our case.
In
our Reply Brief, we argued that sovereign immunity was a myth that certainly
could not apply to Constitutional questions such as ours.
Click here to read the
WTP Appeal, the
U.S. Response and the
WTP Reply briefs
This past week
culminated in two profound events stemming from the landmark
Right-to-Petition lawsuit: the submission of a Motion for Injunction against
the Government to protect those supporting the Right to Petition process,
and public oral arguments were held before the Court of Appeals.
In the Motion for Injunction, the People have documented a far-reaching and
systemic program of legal and administrative abuse by the Government against
the Plaintiffs (and others supporting the WTP Foundation) that amounts to
nothing less than criminal obstruction of justice. Additionally, in its
public oral arguments, the Government committed itself further to its
ostentatious contention that it is does not have to answer to the People and
that the People have no legal jurisdiction to sue it.
These momentous events, ushered to the Court of Appeals by the We The People
Foundation, mark a clear turning point in the historical drama to secure the
Right to Petition and repel the escalating encroachments upon our
Liberty by our own
government.
With the hand of
Providence and
the annals of history on our side, the day of our vindication may finally be
within sight.
Court of Appeals Orders
Both Sides To Argue “Order of Decision”
On August
7th, the Court ordered October 6th as the date that a
panel of three judges would hear oral arguments on the People’s questions:
Is the Government obligated to respond to Petitions for Redress of
Grievances from the People and, if the Government does not respond, do the
People have the Right of Enforcement by withdrawing their financial support
from Government until their Grievances are Redressed?
On September 29th, exactly one week before oral arguments, in an
unusual communication, the Court of Appeals notified the parties via a faxed
Order, that it wanted them to come prepared to argue whether the Court was
required to decide the Government’s claim of “sovereign immunity” before
deciding the merits of our case (i.e., the meaning of the Right to
Petition).
The following is the
text of the Court’s Order of
September 29, 2006:
“It is ORDERED, on the
Court’s own motion, that the parties be prepared to address the following
question at oral argument:
Does
Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S.
83 (1998), require this court to determine whether the federal government
has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to the appellant’s claims
before the court assesses the merits of those claims? Compare
In re Sealed Cases, 192 F.3d 995, 1000-1001(D.C. Cir. 1999),
United States ex rel. Long v. SCS Bus. & Technical Inst., Inc.,
173 F.3d 890, 898 (D.C. Cir. 1999);
Hwang Geum Joo v.
Japan,
413 F.3d 45, 47-48 (D.C. Cir. 2005);
Nair v.
Oakland
County Cmty. Mental Health Auth.,
443 F.3d 469, 476 (6th Cir. 2006), with
Kalodner v Abraham, 310 F.3d 767, 769 (D.C. Cir. 2002);
In re Minister Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 254-55 (D.C. Cir.
1998).”
Sovereign immunity is
the legal doctrine that allegedly bars Courts from hearing lawsuits against
the government except where it (the Government) has through legislation,
“waived” its “sovereignty”, i.e., given its permission to be sued.
Although a fairly complex legal subject, the doctrine that the government is
able to immunize itself against constitutional challenges is inherently
incompatible with the essential principle of Popular Sovereignty as well as
the First Amendment Right to Petition which begins with the prohibitory
language, “Congress shall make no law ….”
WTP has repeatedly
argued in its pleadings, that the higher order Constitutional questions
regarding the Right to Petition and the corollary Right to Enforce
the Right to Petition by withholding taxes, must be addressed before the
Court can allow the enforcement of lower-level statutes, such as the
Anti-Injunction Act or Declaratory Judgments Act to be enforced against the
Plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of a legal forum (jurisdiction) to seek
redress.
Click here for the actual Orders of the Court of
Appeals:
Order-Question
Order-Oral-Arguments
The Oral Arguments
Oral arguments took place
last Friday, October 6, 2006, at the United States Court of Appeals in
Washington DC. On the bench were Chief Judge Ginsburg and Circuit Judges
Rogers and Kavanaugh. Mark Lane argued for the People. DOJ attorney Carol
Barthel argued for the Government.
It should be noted that as
a “first impression” case, this was the first time in history that oral
argument regarding the constitutional meaning of the Right to Petition was
formally heard by any Court in America.
Although Mark Lane did a
respectable job in establishing that the doctrine of sovereign immunity
could not be invoked by the government where constitutional torts were at
controversy, the Government’s attorney, Ms. Barthel did not fair so well.
Much to the dismay of Court, the U.S. Attorney Barthel kept insisting that
this was a tax case, not a constitutional controversy, even after Judge
Ginsburg reminded her that the question before the Court was whether the
People were entitled, under the Petition Clause of the Constitution, to a
response to their Petitions, and that there were also questions before the
Court related to the war and privacy clauses of the Constitution. She went
as far as to claim that it was a “tax case” because DOJ assigned it to its
Tax Division.
In addition, Ms Barthel
advanced an argument not previously raised by DOJ. Barthel repeatedly
insisted that the Right-to-Petition lawsuit was non-justicible because it
was brought against “the government” and that we had failed to name an
agency. She kept arguing this even after Judge Rogers, reading from our
complaint, said the Defendants included the Treasury Department, the IRS,
the Department of Justice and the United States.
In the end, after significant questioning from the Court, Ms. Barthel seemed
to concede that if constitutional torts are in question, sovereign immunity
couldn’t prevent the Government from being sued.
It is impossible to know
how the Court will decide the matter. However, based on our reasoned
analysis of the appellate pleadings thus far and the proceedings including
oral arguments, we now proffer our speculation as to what we may expect:
First, we believe the Court
will issue an explicit finding that the defense of “sovereign immunity” is
no jurisdictional bar to suits asserting constitutional claims. We
believe we have established this fundamental constitutional principle beyond
question in this case, and that only such an explicit finding will
adequately deter the Justice Department from renewing that defense in the
future.
Given that the well-entrenched doctrine of sovereign immunity has, to date
barred many lawsuits against the Government, this judicial clarification in
itself, could be of extraordinary significance for the Law and those that
seek redress where constitutional injuries have been inflicted.
Second, we believe the
Court will define the word “Petition” as found in the First Amendment. Only
the Court can define the meaning of the word. We believe we have provided
the Court with a sufficient context of historical and constitutional
background so it can properly declare the contours of the Right as it was
intended by our Founders.
Third, we believe the Court
will rule that the constitutional guarantee of the Right to Petition the
Government for a Redress of Grievances includes the Right to a Response from
the Government, i.e., that the government is obligated to respond to our
Petitions for Redress of Grievances, which the Court will hold are
proper Petitions for Redress.
Fourth, we believe the
Court may hesitate on ruling that the constitutional guarantee of the Right
to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances includes the Right of
Enforcement should the Government fail to respond. During questioning, Chief
Judge Ginsburg expressed a concern over the “fisc” (public treasury).
Therefore, despite the compelling evidence, the Court may leave for the
United States Supreme Court, on appeal, to decide the question of whether we
have the Right to retain our money if the Government refuses to respond to
our Petitions for Redress.
Fifth, with respect to our
Motion for Injunctive Relief (see comments below), we believe the Court may
grant our motion on the ground that we have established beyond reasonable
argument, that the IRS is engaged in obstructing justice and violating the
Rights of the Plaintiffs under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
We have ordered a
transcript of the oral argument. We expect to receive it by next Friday. We
will post it on the website as soon as we receive it.
The
Motion For Injunctive Relief
On October 4, 2006, two days before the oral argument,
we filed a motion for injunctive relief that included a 20-page
Emergency Motion, a 33-page
Declaration by Bob Schulz, a Declaration by attorney and
prior Board member Christopher
Garvey,
an Affidavit by Board member Burr
Deitz,
an Affidavit by WTP accountant Judith
Dievendorf, and fourteen Affidavits by Plaintiffs in this
case all documenting IRS obstruction of justice.
Although we had asked the District Court for temporary
and preliminary relief, Judge Sullivan dismissed the case on the merits
(saying we failed to state a valid claim for which relief could be granted)
and then he cited the Anti-Injunction Act in dismissing our request
for injunctive relief.
However, the position of the Plaintiffs has changed
significantly since we filed the complaint in 2004 and particularly after
Judge Sullivan dismissed the case in August of 2005.
The Relief Requested
Our
motion requests
an Order:
a)
temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the Internal Revenue
Service and any other agency of the United States that arguably may act
under color of Subtitle A or C of the Internal Revenue Code from
communicating directly with any of the plaintiffs, without the approval of
his or her counsel, until the underlying questions before the Court are
finally determined, and
b)
directing IRS Agent David Gordon to immediately send a letter to each
Plaintiff he sent a letter to, explaining that he had no authority to
contact them directly, that his earlier letter impeded the administration of
justice and violated the Plaintiff’s natural Rights of association, speech,
petition, privacy, due process and Right to Counsel, that any information
acquired by him as a consequence of the earlier letter will be expunged from
the record and considered to be of no consequence, and apologizing to the
Plaintiff for the misstep, and
c)
directing the IRS to immediately provide attorney Mark Lane with a
copy of all letters mailed by the IRS to any of the individual plaintiffs
beginning September 12, 2004, and
d)
directing the IRS to immediately release and suspend all liens, levys
and audits put into effect against any and all Plaintiffs since September
12, 2004, and
e)
temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the Internal
Revenue Service and any other agency of the United States that arguably may
act under color of Subtitle A or C of the Internal Revenue Code, from
initiating, executing, or advancing any enforcement actions against any of
the Plaintiffs, including first-party and third-party summonses, audits and
liens and levys, before any administrative, civil and/or criminal tribunal,
until the underlying questions before the Court are finally determined, and
f)
temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the Internal
Revenue Service and any other agency of the United States that arguably may
act in this matter under color of Subtitle A or C of the Internal Revenue
Code, from advancing any and all administrative, civil and criminal
proceedings against Plaintiffs under subtitle A and subtitle C of Title 26,
including the sharing of information and/or cooperation with state taxing
authorities, until the underlying questions before the Court are finally
determined, and
g) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting
Defendants from enforcing the collection of any tax from any Plaintiff that
is based on the Plaintiff’s labor, until the underlying questions before the
Court are finally determined, and
h)
granting any other relief
that to the Court may seem just and proper.
Plaintiffs’ Harm:
Obstruction Of Justice
One reason for injunctive relief is the fact that the
IRS is impeding the due administration of justice. Without contacting their
attorney, the IRS has been sending letters to individual Plaintiffs telling
each that the Petition process is under investigation as an illegal tax
shelter, and implying they should cooperate with the IRS who will go easy on
them if they testify against those Plaintiffs who are managing the Petition
process, or else the IRS will conduct an investigation of the Plaintiff.
The IRS is also telling the Plaintiffs that the fact that they are in such
discussions with the IRS can be kept a secret if the Plaintiff wants it that
way.
Click for samples of
threatening IRS letters
sent to WTP supporters.
Plaintiffs continue to be faced with a dire “Hobson’s
choice” of either submitting to the abusive acts of the IRS or risking
persecution and prosecution (both civil and criminal) for daring to exercise
the very Rights at question in this controversy.
Plaintiffs’ Harm: IRS Is Not
Following Its Own Law
Another reason for the
injunction is the fact that without following its own law, the IRS has been
taking Plaintiffs' savings, earnings, retirement and social security
payments and placing liens on their homes.
The IRS is doing all
this without first preparing and serving a “substitute for return” (required
by 26 U.S.C. § 6020), without first preparing and serving an “assessment”
(required under § 6201), without first preparing and serving a “declaration
under the penalties of perjury that the assessment was valid”
(required by § 6065), without first preparing and serving a “Notice of
deficiency” (required by § 6212), without first preparing and serving a
“notice and demand for tax” (required under § 6303), without first preparing
and serving a “Notice and opportunity for hearing before levy” (required by
§ 6330), without including the statement regarding the “Authority of the
Secretary” (required by § 6331(a)), without obtaining the approval of the
Secretary for a “continuous levy” (required by § 6331(h)), without
complying with the provision of § 6331(h)) that prohibits the IRS from
attaching more than 15% of the payments due the People each week, and
without issuing the People a “Notice Before Levy” (required by § 6331(d)),
much less a “Notice before levy 30 days before the levy” (required by §
6331(d)).
Plaintiffs’ Harm: Abridgment Of
Constitutional Rights
Another reason given for
the injunctive relief is the fact that Plaintiffs’ fundamental Rights are
being violated by the IRS.
Plaintiffs are being
denied enjoyment of their Right to Associate as the Government forces
individual Plaintiffs and others, by fear or otherwise, away from the
group.
Plaintiffs are being
denied enjoyment of their Right to Petition. Being deprived of their wages,
savings and other resources, Plaintiffs are unable and even unwilling to
contribute financially further to support the Petitioning process and very
importantly, being impaired in their ability to prosecute this case.
Plaintiffs are suffering
escalating IRS enforcement abuse, including the denial of Due Process with
the administrative seizures of their wages and salaries, savings, property
and private papers – without following their own law and without judicial
hearings or court orders.
As membership, support
and donations fall, so has the ability of the Plaintiffs to “speak out”
about the issues, in violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to free Speech.
As third party summonses
and information seizures abound, so does the Government’s information about
Plaintiffs, in violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to Privacy.
The government is taking
property (earnings, savings, retirement pay, automobiles and houses and
private records) without due process.
WTP has formally charged
that the IRS has deliberately and systemically abused its limited tax
enforcement authority with the ill intent and effect of impairing the
landmark Right to Petition lawsuit and the exercise of the First Amendment
Right to Petition the government for Redress of Grievances.
The motion, and its supporting Declarations and Affidavits document a
systemic pattern of abuse specifically targeting Plaintiffs in our RTP
lawsuit, WTP donors and supporters and even We The People Foundation board
members, all with the clear objective of disrupting the ability of the
Foundation to prosecute the lawsuit, impairing the ability of the Foundation
to raise funds for its First Amendment Petition-related work and disrupting
the operations of the not-for-profit WTP organization by intimidating those
that support it.
The court documents
describe a disturbing record of IRS mal-intent and unlawful deprivations of
a wide range of constitutionally protected Rights including the Rights of
Association and Property and IRS’s bad-faith mischaracterization of the WTP
Petition process as an unlawful “abusive tax shelter”. The motion documents
IRS “enforcement” activities that exceed the legal threshold necessary to
establish criminal obstruction of justice.
The abuse covers an extensive range of IRS “enforcement” activities, both
administrative and judicial, including harassment of lawsuit plaintiffs
without notifying lawsuit counsel, deprivations of Plaintiffs’ property and
wages and private records without court orders, judicial “forum shopping” to
skirt protective judicial holdings, and direct threats and intimidation of
lawsuit Plaintiffs and those supporting the Foundation’s work.
The Motion for
Injunctive relief seeks to restrain IRS from further abusing the Plaintiffs
and it asks the court to suspend all tax “enforcement” actions, (civil and
criminal) against the Plaintiffs until the underlying issues surrounding the
Right to Petition are litigated.
The People MUST Overcome
Their Fear Of The Government
A close reading of the
motion for injunctive relief will reveal a disturbing development among the
People—fear: fear of being identified as a donor or supporter of the
Petition process organized and managed by this Foundation; fear of being
targeted by the IRS; fear of further abuse by the IRS.
Granted, fear is a
normal emotion and can be well anticipated when confronting the machinery of
the IRS as it executes it role as the nation’s tax collector. It is also
common knowledge that the IRS routinely violates the Due Process Rights of
individuals in its day-to-day administration of the law, and is used by the
Government to silence opposition and suppress the truth by turning lives
completely upside down.
However, we must not let
our well-founded fear of the Government deter or impair us.
We have come far in our defense of our Right to accountability in
government, our Right to Petition, our Right to a response and our Right to
enforce our Rights. Ours has been a monumental journey, a heroic expedition
in search of constitutional governance carried out in decency and good
order.
Very importantly, we are making significant, measurable progress: The
Government’s attempts to avoid accountability to the People have been
publicly exposed at the Court of Appeals and it can be reasonably inferred
that the Judiciary is now on its way to correcting the error of the lower
court and recognizing the Right of the People to Petition the government for
Redress, as our Founders intended.
As
Jefferson
is believed to have said, “When governments fear the people, there is
Liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Here are a few more
quotes from
Jefferson on the subject of fear and government.
“I steer my bark with
Hope in the head, leaving Fear astern. My hopes indeed sometimes fail; but
not oftener than the forebodings of the gloomy.” Thomas Jefferson to John
Adams,
Monticello, April 8, 1816.
"I am not among those
who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for
continued freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
"Aristocrats... fear the
people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:96
Please remember, an act
of tyranny anywhere is a threat to Freedom everywhere. We MUST not threaten
Freedom and encourage tyranny by giving in to our fear of the government.
We must not allow our
fear of being identified as a person who contributed to the Petition process
keep us from doing the right thing.
Now IS the time for all
good men and women to come to the aid of the People and their Constitution.
Think of what we can achieve if we stand together, willing to share the
burden and pay a price to secure Freedom, if necessary.
On the other hand
think of what we will lose if we stand down now giving in to our fear at
this critical juncture; tyranny will have found victory.
Finances
A close reading of the
Declaration by Bob Schulz reveals that the Foundation has
developed not only a detailed plan for a sorely needed We The People Network
including the
Liberty Hour, but an
Operations Plan as well. (ed. Please
RIGHT-click to save these large .pdf documents to your PC) As Bob points out, these achievable
business plans, along with our ability to continue prosecuting our landmark
Right to Petition lawsuit up through the Supreme Court, are now at risk due
to a significant reduction in the level of donations currently being
received by the Foundation.
We have been
extraordinarily busy defending against one initiative by the IRS after
another for the better part of the past 12 months and our on-line donation
system has been off-line for at least that long.
In addition, our
regional meetings planned for January-February of 2006 for the purpose of
raising funds for our work were derailed as we responded to Aaron Russo’s
request that we screen “America,
from Freedom to Fascism.” At our expense we rented commercial theaters
around the country in twenty-two widely dispersed and well-populated cities,
advertised the events and showed the movie to packed houses. Equipment was
purchased to show the movie in theaters that did not have digital projection
capability.
Every weekend Bob Schulz traveled to and from another city to screen the
movie. We succeeded in introducing the movie to
America
and developing a significant national buzz about it before Aaron’s
distribution company took over. We are happy to have been able to do what we
did. It is a movie that should be seen by as many people as possible.
So, here we are, with
much to accomplish but lacking sufficient funds. Please consider sending a
significant donation to the Foundation today. Even small amounts help
tremendously if everyone pitches in.
As we claim in no
uncertain terms in our court filings, the U.S. Government would love nothing
less then to stifle the Petitioning process, impair the prosecution of the
landmark Right-to-Petition lawsuit and shut down the We The People
Foundation. To a significant extent they have been, of late, measurably
successful toward those ends.
Our legal and activist work requires your financial support.
Without your help, our work CANNOT move forward.
Time is critical. The WTP Foundation and our network of supporters are
under attack.
If you care, we need your help -- and we need it NOW….
What price Liberty?
Click here to make a tax deductible
Donation
Want To Help
But Remain Anonymous?
If one wants to help us accomplish our work but is not able to overcome
their fear of being identified by the government they can make their
donation in cash or by money order. The Foundation keeps excellent
records
of all receipts and outlays. Our bookkeeper regularly records funds received
by “Anonymous.”
“V for Vendetta"
If you have not yet seen the feature movie “V for
Vendetta” we urge you to immediately rent or, better yet, purchase it.
Everyone in the Patriot community will relate closely to the compelling
story line that it is Government that must Fear the People.
It is an “anti-government” movie where good overcomes evil. It was produced
and written by the bothers who produced the Matrix film trilogy. The story
takes place in England in 2015. Some may be offended at one or two aspects
of the film, but they will have to look past those parts to the larger good
the movie serves and the compelling messages of Liberty and personal
responsibility in the battles against government tyranny and fascism.
We mention the movie for another reason. You will note
that at the end of the movie the People are finally compelled and driven to
stand up en masse and confront their evil and corrupt government --
but ONLY IF THEY CAN HIDE THEIR IDENTITIES via a mask.
In the final climax of the film, thousands of ordinary People march, unarmed
and wearing masks, to the center of government (Parliament) where, on the
street, they confront the well-armed ranks of the military. The audience,
gripped with anticipation awaits the final confrontation of the People
against the powers of the state. As the confrontation proceeds and the
government soldiers stand down, unwilling to attack those they serve even as
the People defiantly break through their ranks, the People, finally
overcoming their fears and recognizing their innate power and Sovereignty,
doff their masks, having reclaimed their Freedom and experiencing the Light of Liberty.
We have a profound idea and two questions of you:
Idea. We obtain a permit from the National Park
Service for a large rally of masked people across from the White House and
across from the Capitol, on a date to be determined.
Q. Suppose our application said that one of two
purposes of the rally by people wearing masks was to give EXPRESSION to the
fact that too many people in America have come to be afraid of the
Government? Would you attend the event?
Q. Suppose the second purpose of the rally by
people wearing masks was to give EXPRESSION to our demand that Government
recognize its obligation to respond to our Petitions for Redress of
Grievances by answering the questions in our four Petitions? Would you
attend the event?
Have we piqued your interest? We need to know what you
think and how many people might attend. We are developing an on-line
database for people to let us know how they feel. We will post it in a few
days. In the meantime, please rent the movie and give the idea some thought.
"JAIL 4 Judges"
For those of you who are not already familiar with Bill
Stegmeier and his truly outstanding effort to get the Judicial
Accountability Amendment on the ballot in South Dakota next month, please go
immediately to
http://www.southdakotajudicialaccountability.com.
Last summer and fall, under Bill’s leadership and at his expense (he paid
workers to go out among the people to collect signatures- about $2.50 per
signature) some 46,800 South Dakotans signed the Judicial
Accountability Amendment petition. That effort got the Amendment is on the
November ballot
as Amendment E.
Basically what Amendment E will do
is create a "citizen's oversight committee" with the sole purpose of hearing
complaints against judges alleging judicial misconduct.
Right now, there is no effective way to hold a judge accountable should
he violate a person's rights in "his" courtroom. Amendment E will change
that. A Judge SHOULD be accountable should he violate a person's rights,
either by intent or mistake.
Bill is a soft spoken gentleman and a determined
fighter for Justice and Liberty. At largely his own expense (he is a small
businessman) he has taken on all those who have a vested interest in the
status quo regarding the Judiciary – the power brokers- and according to the
polls the majority of the people in SD want the measure passed!
Here is the problem. In these final weeks before election
day, the opposition is covering the people with a blanket of propaganda,
from TV, radio and newspapers, to defeat Amendment E. Bill’s campaign to
get the initiative approved needs your donations NOW, TODAY, so he can
counter the expected effect of the blitz by the other side. Send your
donation to: SD Judicial Accountability Committee, P.O. Box 412, Tea, SD
57064. For more information, including a copy of the proposed Amendment,
visit
http://www.southdakotajudicialaccountability.com.
Important Links from This
Update:
Emergency Motion For Injunction
33-page
Declaration by Bob Schulz
Click here to make a tax deductible
Donation
to the We The People Foundation
|
