Schulz files en banc request

[Demosthenes]

June 24, 2007


Read It Twice:
En Banc Request Filed in DC
Day of Prayer and Fasting: July 1st


On Friday, June 22, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit received the original and nineteen copies of the People’s Petition for En Banc consideration in the case We The People v. United States, Case No 05-5359.

A link to the People’s Petition is located at the end of this article. WE RECOMMEND YOU READ IT TWICE to absorb the finer points or if you don’t understand a word or concept. The future of the great American experiment in self-government hangs in the balance. To use the vernacular, “It’s crunch time.” This is the second highest Court in the land.

The Petition will now be distributed to all fourteen judges of the Court, including the three judges sitting on the Panel that issued its Opinion on May 8, 2007 (Rogers, Ginsburg and Kavanaugh).

If one of the judges calls for a vote, the fourteen judges will vote to decide whether the case should be considered by the full Court. If eight of the judges decide to have the case reconsidered, the current Order will be nullified and the full court will request a response from the Government to our Petition for Rehearing. The Court will then decide whether the original Opinion should be reversed, modified or affirmed.

If the final decision by the Court of Appeals goes against the Government, the Government will undoubtedly petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. If the action goes against the People, the People will petition the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Supreme Court does not have to hear the case; it could deny a Petition it receives from either the Government or the People, without a word of explanation. Neither the People nor the Government has a “right of appeal” to the Supreme Court.

Therefore, what the People filed with the Court of Appeals is of extreme importance and ….


You be the Judge

As an organization committed to educating People regarding constitutional principles, legal procedures and judicial doctrines such as stare decisis, we are very interested in hearing from you, regardless of your station in life – lay people or lawyers – Libertarians or major Party – writers or readers - regarding your opinion of the importance of this case, our legal arguments and our efforts to date to bring this knowledge to the attention of the American people.

Do you think we made a convincing case for an En Banc consideration?

Links are provided below to our original Appeal, the Opinion of the Court, and our Petition for Rehearing.

Please answer “yes” or “no” using the on-line form we have prepared for this purpose (See link below). Space is provided for your brief comments, ideas and questions.


Our View:
The Importance of En Banc Consideration
Cannot Be Overstated

The Court faces a grave and solemn duty. It has before it a constitutional controversy in which the most fundamental question the federal Judiciary may ever consider has been humbly put forth by the People: "Is the Government a Servant government to be held accountable by the People to a written Constitution or is the Government the Master?"

To be sure, any decision that leaves the Court's initial Opinion undisturbed may possibly damn this nation to an another era of unspeakable tension and upheaval as the Executive usurps the power of the People and of an acquiescing Congress, and as the Judiciary cooperates in the Government’s collective decision to deny People their constitutional Rights by applying its judge made standing and stare decisis doctrines.

It takes not but a simple man to look around and understand the significant risks our Republic now faces because of Government's oppressive constitutional torts – its violations of the war, money, tax, privacy, immigration and other prohibitions and requirements of our Constitution.

The People have honorably Petitioned the political branches for Redress and have been repeatedly denied. The People have honorably endured years of judicial Petitioning seeking a Declaration of their Rights. To this point, they have been repeatedly denied. Even as these words are written, the government seeks, under color of law, to silence the People and shut down their Petition process, including the ability of the People to exhaust their judicial remedies in this case. The Government’s primary weapon in its assault on the People is the unconstitutional application of the otherwise constitutional internal revenue laws.

Beyond this procedural juncture, there is no guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court will even consider this historical controversy. As such, this Court now bears the full burden of the Law. The Divine gift known as America hangs in the balance.

The Right to Petition is the exercise of Popular Sovereignty. It is an expression of a fundamental force of Nature that, like Liberty itself, cannot not be long denied.

As history teaches, we will choose to either rise as Free men and women and come together peacefully under the Rule of Law, regardless of the degree of difficulty, to keep Government within the boundaries drawn around its power by the People, or we wander into a quagmire of governmental tyranny and suffer the chaos that accompanies the tension and upheavals that are the consequence of Nature violated.

Many people have already paid the ultimate price for this answer, many continue to exhibit the courage of their convictions.

The Court of Appeals now faces a most solemn duty: to issue a judicial declaration establishing whether the Government is indeed, a servant Government that can be held accountable by the People’s Petitions for Redress of Grievances highlighting constitutional torts.

We pray that the Judges of this Court will each reflect deeply within their hearts on these matters, and like the Plaintiffs -- and all those that have ever been summoned to defend our Constitution, to call upon the Creator for the spiritual guidance, strength of character and moral integrity needed to stand against those who seek to forever deprive the Divine Blessings of Freedom and the Light of Liberty to the Peoples of this nation, and of the Earth.

"Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy

"Fiat justitia et ruant coeli" -- Let justice be done though the heavens fall.


Day of Prayer and Fasting: July 1st

On July 1st, from the moment I rise until the moment my head again comes to rest on my pillow, I will, from time to time, remove a sheet of paper from my pocket, open it to the list of Judges of the DC Circuit, slowly descend the list to read each name and pray that my Creator will open the mind of the Judge to the intent of the Framers and Ratifiers as they added these most important words to the Constitution of the United States of America;

“Congress shall make no law…abridging…the Right of the People…
to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.”

To remind myself of my commitment to think and pray about the Judges and their solemn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution, I will not consume any food or beverage on July 1st.

Please join me if you can.

Respectfully yours,

Bob Schulz

[Famspear]

[fade in to sound of angelic chorus...]

oh byoo-TEE-ful for SPAY-shuss skies, for AM-ber waves of grain...... [fade down slightly and bring up the voice of Bob Schulz. ...]

-----"The future of the great American experiment in self-government hangs in the balance."

-----"any decision that leaves the Court's initial Opinion undisturbed may possibly damn this nation to an another era of unspeakable tension and upheaval . . . "

-----"The Divine gift known as America hangs in the balance."

[music swelling back up in volume ....]

Uh-meh-ri-cuh, Uh-meh-ri-cuh, no-tax-es-should-we-pay
We're dead-beats and we're cheat-ers, too
De-lu-sions are OK.......

[Imalawman]

Although the hearing petition is laughable, the dissent in the original decision has me a little worried that we might yet hear more of this case. There very well could be a vote to re-hear this case.

[LPC]

The petition for rehearing never mentions the anti-injunction act, and yet admits that what they really want is to stop the government from collecting taxes.

The "Statement of Facts," pages 3-4, reads in its entirety as follows:

With two exceptions, the facts have been adequately summarized in the Opinion. First, the People take exception to the statement on page 3 of the slip opinion that reads; “In protest, some plaintiffs have stopped paying federal income taxes.” In fact, those plaintiffs that have stopped paying income taxes are not engaged in garden-variety political "protesting". They are claiming and formally exercising their Right to Petition. Having been repeatedly denied Redress, withdrawing their financial support is an integral element of the process of Petitioning for Redress of Grievances. They stopped because it remains their Right to do so -- as the only non-violent way to enforce their unalienable, natural Right to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution. The People know any Right that is not enforceable is not a Right. By affidavits filed with the District Court those Plaintiffs have inextricably linked their decision to not file another tax return to the Government’s failure to respond to their Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts. Withholding their monies is the practical exercise of their individual Right to Petition, their Right to Redress, their Right to constitutional governance and their Right of Popular Sovereignty.

Second, the People take exception to the statement on page 4 of the slip opinion; “Plaintiffs therefore asked the District Court to…prevent the Government from collecting taxes from them.” In fact, Plaintiffs asked the District Court to prevent the Government from collecting taxes from them unless and until their Grievances were Redressed, i.e., the People Petitioned the District Court to protect them from the Government's abridgement of, and retaliation for, their act of claiming and exercising their Rights under the First Amendment and Ninth Amendments.

(Emphasis in original.)

So Schulz/Lane are continuing to emphasize that what they want is relief from tax enforcement, even though the court has already held that it does not have jurisdiction to grant that relief, and even as Schulz/Lane fail to challenge that jurisdictional holding.

[Kimokeo]

Although the hearing petition is laughable, the dissent in the original decision has me a little worried that we might yet hear more of this case. There very well could be a vote to re-hear this case.

What was the dissent - any link?

[.]

What? No begging for money? Bob is slipping.

[Dezcad]

What? No begging for money? Bob is slipping.

He does have this on the website following his message:

Click here to make a Donation towards the cost of our attorney, Mark Lane. We especially appeal to the Plaintiffs in the landmark litigation. If 1,000 of you will send $85 each, we will be able to make our final payment to Mark. We thank you in advance for your courage and conviction. We know what the IRS has been doing to silence you and to shut down the petition process to escape accountability. Be strong. The Truth will soon set us free.

[Nikki]

Oh ye of little faith:

Click here to make a Donation towards the cost of our attorney, Mark Lane. We especially appeal to the Plaintiffs in the landmark litigation. If 1,000 of you will send $85 each, we will be able to make our final payment to Mark. We thank you in advance for your courage and conviction. We know what the IRS has been doing to silence you and to shut down the petition process to escape accountability. Be strong. The Truth will soon set us free.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UP ... -06-24.htm

[LPC]

Although the hearing petition is laughable, the dissent in the original decision has me a little worried that we might yet hear more of this case. There very well could be a vote to re-hear this case.

What was the dissent - any link?

It was actually a concurring opinion, although it reads like a dissent.

The full text of both the majority and concurring opinions can be found at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -5359a.pdf

[natty]

So Schulz/Lane are continuing to emphasize that what they want is relief from tax enforcement, even though the court has already held that it does not have jurisdiction to grant that relief, and even as Schulz/Lane fail to challenge that jurisdictional holding.

For the life of me, I can't tell if they are arguing that they have a "Right to PETITION" or a "Right to a REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES".
Furthermore, after reviewing their brief for rehearing enbanc, I don't think they recognize the difference.

If the argument is a right to PETITION, then all they are entitled to is an answer which the court said no. The concurring opinion mentioned that such a right has not been argued based on historical premises.

I think Schulz/Lane has confused this concurring opinion with the historical basis of the right to a REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES in the Declaration of Independence which of course was the justification for WAR.

I think Schulz is deluded enough to believe he has a right to get his way and a right to withhold tax payments until he does and Lane is cunning enough to take the followers' money.

What kind of govt would it be if you had a "right" to civil disobedience? -It would not be a govt at all.

[Imalawman]

Although the hearing petition is laughable, the dissent in the original decision has me a little worried that we might yet hear more of this case. There very well could be a vote to re-hear this case.

What was the dissent - any link?

It was actually a concurring opinion, although it reads like a dissent.

The full text of both the majority and concurring opinions can be found at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -5359a.pdf

Concurring opinion - right, sorry about that.

[Kimokeo]

Thanks for the link.

I find the concurring/dissent opinion rather interesting - it would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court would hear the case. "No doubt it would present an interesting question."

"It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court would agree to entertain the issue, much less whether it would agree with appellants and "most scholars" that the historical evidence provides insight into the First Congress's understanding..."

It sounds like the Judge sees this with at least a remote chance for review by the SC.

The idea of the right to petition with no benefit in doing so seems to be a worthless right.

[Kimokeo]

Son: Hey dad, can I talk to you about my allowance?

Dad: Sure, go ahead.

Son: I've been doing all my chores and homework, pulling good grades, that should account for something, right?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Son: Uh, and I don't drink or smoke, haven't committed any crimes, kept my nose clean...does any of this count?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Son: Hmm. I helped the old lady across the street, helped volunteer at build that home for the poor, I even helped get people to register to vote. Dad?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Son: Mom, why won't Dad answer me?

Mom: Because he doesn't have to. Your name isn't on the marriage license. Is it dear?

Dad: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz huh? Yes, dear.

[Cpt Banjo]

The idea of the right to petition with no benefit in doing so seems to be a worthless right.

Not really. Even if the USSC were to reaffirm its previous decisions and hold that the right to petition doesn't include the right to a response, the right to be able to petition without the risk of governmental reprisal for doing so is hardly worthless. And who knows -- your petition may get the government to change the law.

Of course, Schulz and his lemmings have repeatedly been shown the law they ask about, but they're too deluded to believe it.

[Imalawman]

Son: Hey dad, can I talk to you about my allowance?

Dad: Sure, go ahead.

Option #2 - Dad: Shut up and go to your room - no allowance for a year and I'm taking your car back. How dare you even question your allowance! - you see, the right to even ask the question is a very powerful right. The government can't squelch your right to question its actions. Hardly a worthless right.

And who decides what constitues an adequate answer? The constitution doesn't ever talk about the right to an actual redress, merely the right to ask for a redress. Which means that even if the SC does hear the case, that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will from the outset most likely be on the gov't's side.

[silversopp]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pet ... rview.aspx

Best article I came across on this issue.

[Disilloosianed]

Like everything else Bob does, the "right to petition" has been taken out of context. The First Amendment is about the citizen's right to expression. The text says that "Congress shall make no law. . abridging" a list of items, including the right to petition. That's all the Amendment says...that Congress will not stop you from doing it. Congress has made no such law. Petition away, but that's all the citizenry is guaranteed under the First Amendment.

[Kimokeo]

Yet, if you give a speech at graduation to your peers because you were elected by them to do so, you aren't allowed to mention religion because of the ridiculous reading of the separation of church and state.

Congress/States will stop you from speaking about religion during your speech despite the fact that everyone knows the speaker doesn't speak for the school, especially when it is personal testimony of one's belief.

[Disilloosianed]

Yes, but that comes under a different clause. There the Amendment does not say that Congress will make no law abridging religion. It says that Congress will make no law establishing or prohibiting. Whether you agree with the interpretation of the establishment clause or not, it still has no effect on the right to petition.

[notorial dissent]

The whole point of all this is that Bob’s, or anyone else’s for that matter, right of petition and redress has not been infringed upon in way shape or form. They got to present their petition, and seek redress for the terrible injustice they felt has been done them.

The fact that their petition demands answers to questions that have not only been answered, but answered innumerable times probably had a good deal to do with why it was ignored. The questions they raised were no more valid than their temper tantrum that if they didn’t get their way, which was what they wanted to begin with, they would hold their breath until the turned blue and not pay anymore taxes, which is what they whole thing was about from the beginning, an excuse, any excuse, to not have to pay their taxes.

The only things they actually asked for in their court case that can be readily identified are that they get answers to their questions, which the govt has in fact done many times, and a prohibition against the govt in collecting their taxes and/or punishing them, a remedy the courts are specifically prohibited from doing.

The plain fact of the matter is that petitions are presented every day to Congress, and various federal agencies and groups, and if the petition is valid and makes sense they are dealt with. New laws come about, old laws are changed or repealed, and action is taken if only by someone from Congress leaning on a particular agency that is dragging its feet over something or being particularly difficult for the sole purpose of being difficult. The point being, that it has to be a valid reasonable petition, not a compendium of tax protester excuses and evasions. That is when and how it works, and why it doesn’t work otherwise.

The corollary is that if the Flat Earth Society were to present a petition demanding that the USGS change all the official maps to represent a flat earth because their deeply held belief that the earth is flat is being flouted would get the same response as Schulz’s, which is to say, due and properly ignored.

My personal feeling is that the court should actually have ruled that the suit be dismissed, with prejudice, because the cause of action had been dealt with and properly dealt with prior to the suit, and that just because they didn’t get the answers they wanted they could not sue over it, and that there was no relief which could be granted, since their questions had in fact been answered, they just didn’t want to believe them, and that the courts could not issue an injunction against the IRS for collection.

Case Dismissed.