You are herecontent / Bush's Blues

Bush's Blues



http://www.radicalruss.net/bushmap/index.php

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How wonderful. Thanks.

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
unconstitutiona
l, 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.
 

This shall prove to be interesting indeed.

Which court will throw out the case?
Which court shall decide to hear the case?
And furthermore, what the rulings shall be.

For when a Government OF the people, formed BY the people, designed to work FOR the people, sets itself apart and above the people that which it Constitutionally is mandated to Govern, then it no longer IS a Government designed OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

The question then is:

WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT DO WE HAVE LEFT?

MAX 1 asks:

WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT DO WE HAVE LEFT?

I would be surprised if these suits are not all thrown out of court based on arcane legal technicalities, or decided in the government's favor on the same basis.

Still, even if I am correct, they are a worthy pursuit; if only for the truths layed bare by their failures.

With regards to the upcoming November elections;
John Perry Says:
May 26th, 2006 at 8:58 am e

"If the dems take the hill in November and fail to impeach the entire Bush cabal for their well documented crimes against our country, the incestuous, one party government that many of us have recognized and spoken of for years will be irreversibly cemented and laid completely bare for the world to see.

If this highly likely eventuality does not spark an all-out political revolution in America, then we truly are a nation of fools, and we will indeed have reaped the government we truly deserve."

jp

http://www.smallgov.org/?p=293#comment-2237

Of the 1350 signing statements that U.S. Presidents have attached to bills they have signed into law, gwbush has signed 750 of them.

Meanwhile, he has been the first to hold the office since before the 20th century to issue zero vetoes.

Why?

Unlike his predessors in issuing signing statements as a means of clarification, bush uses his signing statements to unilaterally in effect repeal the very law he his signing; leaving congress no avenue to overturn his de facto veto.

Moreover, he combines an unsupportably broad intrepretation of his powers as commander in chief of the armed forces with a concomitant broad intrepretation of congressional mandate to use force to effectively suspend the privacy rights of citizens. An act he has openly lied about.

It is called the theory of the unitary executive; originally, it was intended to increase the president's control over the functions of the Executive branch at the expense of congressional oversight and bureaucratic insularity.

Now, having conquered those two adversaries, the only remaining obstacle to totalitarianism, the rights of the individual are under attack.

The kind of government we have left is one perhaps a half step short of absolute dictatorship, and running hard towards it.

As campaign finance "reform" and ever more demanding (but not of the "established" partys)ballot access laws are implimented to remove the threat of third partys, John's "incestuous, one party
government...""...will be irreversibly cemented..."

This November may be our last opportunity to support third party candidates, historically, a vital check against the insularity of the established partys:

http://www.smallgov.org/?p=293

These law suits, along with the up-coming elections, will crystalize our situation.

---The Bikemessenger

casking nursingly discontinuousness lagthing pectinic somersault bicornuate disfriar
Official Howie Mandel Website, The
http://www.terrykellysongs.com/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

CHOOSE LANGUAGE

Support This Site

Donate.

Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.

 

Sponsors:

Speaking Truth to Empire

***

Families United

***

Ray McGovern

***

Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.

 

Ads:

Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from Queeniebridesmaid.co.uk

 

*****

 

Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on Ca-Dress.com

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.