Article Image
News Link • Constitution

PART 2: OPTIONS, ANYONE?

December 5, 2010

PART 2:
OPTIONS, ANYONE?

 

  Please Help Fund
Our Important Work!

The 2011 Freedom Calendars
make great gifts.
Click Here!

Shipping immediately!

 

We closed our previous update stating, “Our next update will detail the darkest and most outrageous example of the three branches having a secret share in a scheme to forbid the People from claiming and exercising their First Amendment Right to hold the government accountable to the Constitution.” 

Here is the background and the particulars.  

Since 1995, People have been attempting to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution by exercising the little-known, unalienable Right guaranteed by the last ten words of the First Amendment, “…and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances”. 

While this Right was placed in the First Amendment as the PRIMARY means through which the power of the People to directly hold the Government accountable could be exercised, peaceably, our modern-day world of materialism and apathy, public largesse for votes, and routine usurpation of power by the Government, has left the “capstone Right” dormant and all but forgotten. Ask any attorney to cite the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and most will not mention the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances. 

In Petitioning for Redress. we were motivated by the knowledge that a departure from the Constitution in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on, until the People are reduced to misery and suffering. 

We knew, “The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.” Thomas Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

We knew that each violation of the Constitution has a ravaging effect on America, Her People, economy, reputation and security, and that the whole of the devastation would be greater than the sum of the parts.   

We knew that an act of tyranny anywhere is a threat to Freedom everywhere.   

We Petitioned to Remedy the violations of the Constitution arising from:
 

 1.       the $ 20 billion bailout of Mexico in 1995 without approval by Congress; and

 2.       the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 after Congress refused to authorize it; and

 3.       the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor; and

 4.       the withholding of earnings from the paychecks of workers; and

 5.       the Federal Reserve System’s fiat, debt-based currency; and

 6.       the decision to invade Iraq by the President, rather than Congress; and

 7.       the USA Patriot Act; and

 8.       the federal gun control laws; and

 9.       the failure of Presidents to enforce the immigration laws; and

10.    the movement toward a North American Union; and

11.    the counting of votes in secret by machines; and

12.    the eligibility to be President if both parents are not U.S. citizens; and

13.    the $ 85 billion bailout of AIG; and

14.    the $ 700 TARP bailout.  

The result has always been the same; silence, no response. Silence, however, under well established U.S. law, is admission, when a public official has a duty to respond and chooses not to. 

The People decided to test the attitude of the Judiciary. On July 19, 2004, the People filed a lawsuit asking the federal Court to declare -- for the first time in history -- the Constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment.  The title of the case was, We The People v. United States. 

The Court was asked to answer two questions: 1) whether the Government is obligated under the First Amendment to respond to the People's Petitions for Redress of violations of the Constitution; and 2) whether the People possess the Right to retain their money until those Grievances are redressed.

Obviously, the correct answer to the first question is “yes” – the Government is obligated to respond. To speculate otherwise would be to call into question why the clause was included as part of the First Amendment. It is noteworthy that the Petition clause is the only part of the Amendment which articulates a specific and direct form and process of communication from the People to the Government, thereby reiterating the potent principle from the Declaration of Independence that defines government as a servant of the People. Finally, in the words of the Supreme Court of 1803, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect....” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174.

The correct answer to the second question is also “yes” – the People have a right of enforcement. It is well known in American Jurisprudence that "with every right there is a remedy" and "any right that is not enforceable is not a right." The Right to withhold money as a peaceable means for the People to “weigh in” on and Redress unconstitutional governmental acts arises from the Founding Fathers and their sound reasoning as to how a Republic must operate to ensure the Rights of a Free People.

On October 6, 2006 oral arguments were heard by the United States Court of Appeals. Traditionally, Appeals Courts issue their decisions within 4-6 weeks following oral arguments. However, the decision in the Right to Petition lawsuit was issued more than seven months after oral arguments. Why the delay?  

We now know activities were quietly taking place within the other two branches of the Government that appear to have directed the verdict in our case.  

Rather than work with the People’s concerns by responding directly to our Petitions for Redress, the Government chose to “clamp down,” through a (constitutionally abhorrent) tripartite treaty – a tripartition, divided among the three branches, for the purpose of (unlawfully) colluding to deny the People their First Amendment Right to hold the government accountable to the Constitution. These actions were taken in a manner to attract the least attention possible. 

First, in December, 2006, the 109th Congress passed the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (H.R.6111). Please note the title. This Act was meant to retroactively extend tax credits that had expired in 2005: Sounds good for the People - but look again.  

Tucked away in the Act was a provision (Title III -- Health Savings Accounts, Section 407, click on Section 407) that authorized the (Executive Branch) Treasury Department to make law (i.e., unconstitutionally) – that is, to administratively prescribe a list of “specified frivolous positions,” and impose a penalty of $5,000 on any person who uses a “specified frivolous position” as a ground of reasoning for retaining his money from the Government. Disturbingly, there is no definition of “frivolous” in the Act.  

Then, on March 15, 2007, the Treasury Department published Notice 2007-30, a list of “Frivolous Positions”, again, without defining “frivolous.” Included on the frivolous list, among numerous other well-researched and proven positions, is Government’s refusal to respond to First Amendment Petitions for Redress of Grievances. (See paragraph (9)b of the Notice).  Citizens who raise the issue of government’s failure to respond to First Amendment Petitions for Redress as a ground of reasoning for retaining their money from the Government are subject to a severe penalty.  

In short, all the “positions” cited in the Treasury Notice (including the full exercise of the First Amendment Right to Petition) are deemed "frivolous” simply because Government says so. 

Then, on May 8, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit finally issued its decision in We The People v. United States (seven months after it heard oral argument), ruling that the Government is not obligated to respond to the People’s First Amendment Petitions for Redress and, therefore, the People do not have the Right to retain their money until the Government responds.  

The Judiciary fell into line with the “verdict” directed by the actions of the Legislative branch on December 9, 2006, and the Executive branch on March 15, 2007. A ruling that abused the judicial doctrine of stare decisis by relying on a principle of law laid down in two irrelevant cases.  

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion but that there has been an assent by the three branches of the central government to actively thwart and quash any attempt by the People to enforce their Right to hold the Government accountable under the first amendment. 

The People need to realize the full extent of the adverse impact this collusion will have upon Freedom in America. 

A Petition for Certiorari (w/ Appendix) was filed, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case which could have recognized the People’s Right to peaceably hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, thereby shifting the ultimate power in our society from the Government back to the People, where it was meant to reside in the first place.
 

A Scheme Well-Concealed  

Who among us knew that a very lengthy bill, the “Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,” widely popular because it retroactively extended for two years, hundreds of tax credits that had expired in December 2005, which was introduced and passed both houses of Congress in three days in December 2006 (with no record of who voted for or against the bill) actually included a provision that authorized the Executive branch to prescribe a list of “specified frivolous positions” and to fine anyone $5,000 if they cite any of those positions as a reason for retaining their money? The Table of Contents for the Act itself runs 25 pages

Who among us knew that on March 15, 2007, the IRS published Notice 2007-30 containing a list of “specified frivolous positions,” and that the list included “the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances”, among many others and now being used against citizens who are standing on the Law and acting upon their beliefs?  

Who among us was able to see the connection between the acts of the Congress and Treasury and the May 8, 2007 decision by the Court in We The People v. United States, declaring the Government is not obligated to respond to the People’s Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts and the People have no Right to peaceably enforce their Rights?  

What great discords and suffering might have been prevented, especially now, in these days of great national distress and economic turmoil had a government founded of the People, by the People, and for the People, been willing to openly answer the questions asked by the People in their Petitions for Redress. 

It is clear that we, the People are up against unjust government and laws. If we are to maintain the great American experiment, it is essential for the leaders of every group of “Freedom Keepers” to come together and meet face-to-face, with great haste, to develop a “Liberty Matrix” and a peaceful course of action for the Free to defend the greatest governing documents ever given to mankind and with the recollection that the cause of America is still the cause of the World.

If you agree, please encourage all leaders of Liberty loving groups you know to make contact with us regarding the upcoming Liberty Summit via info@givemeliberty.org.  We will shortly establish a discussion forum for readers to share comments publicly.

 

Our Annual
Year-End Fundraiser!


The 2011
Freedom Calendars
Click Here

Now Shipping!


 
You, The People, are the only ones
who can Save the Constitution.

Our Continuing Thanks 

Again, many thanks for your much needed support. You can donate via PayPal, or Join the WTP Congress (monthly or yearly memberships) or set up a monthly "subscription" or one-time donation of any size.


Click the button or this link to our PayPal account
(*NO* PayPal account or log-on is necessary!)

  
 
 
 
 

Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: