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.


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.

Click here for the preview-trailer #2 for “V for Vendetta"
Click here for additional clips from the movie: Clip A   Clip B 


"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

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