Shameful and Treasonous!!!!!

[Disilloosianed]

From WTP. I haven't read the petition yet, but the trailer is promising:

“SHAMEFUL AND TREASONOUS”
Petition for Rehearing Filed
in Landmark Right-to-Petition Case

Taking advantage of one final procedural step to ask the U.S. Supreme
Court to hear the landmark Right to Petition case, on February 1st
Bob Schulz filed a Petition for Rehearing.

“According to its own precedent, this Court would be abdicating its duty and committing treason to the Constitution if it fails to [accept jurisdiction
and hear this case]” wrote Schulz. “Tyranny marks a government that
ignores its free People.”

Schulz also wrote that it would be “shameful” for the Court to fail to hear this first impression question of extreme public importance involving the interpretation
of the Constitution while agreeing to hear the probate/bankruptcy/defamation
case of Anna Nicole Smith.

“Shall the People in republican America, with its written Constitution for the protection of the public Rights and a body of strictly limited powers, now be forbidden to do that which the Framers’ intended?” asked Schulz.

[Disilloosianed]

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PR ... -31-08.pdf

There she be.

[Famspear]

“According to its own precedent, this Court would be abdicating its duty and committing treason to the Constitution if it fails to [accept jurisdiction and hear this case]” wrote Schulz. “Tyranny marks a government that ignores its free People.”

All the way down here in Texas, I can hear Schulzie-poo flying around and banging against the walls of his metaphorical cage, screaming like a monkey in a zoo, as his frustration level grows to mythical proportions.

[Disilloosianed]

Death fast! Death Fast!!

[Cpt Banjo]

All the way down here in Texas, I can hear Schulzie-poo flying around and banging against the walls of his metaphorical cage, screaming like a monkey in a zoo, as his frustration level grows to mythical proportions.

And as his grift dries up.

[LPC]

All the way down here in Texas, I can hear Schulzie-poo flying around and banging against the walls of his metaphorical cage, screaming like a monkey in a zoo, as his frustration level grows to mythical proportions.

The District Court, Circuit Court, and Supreme Court couldn't have possibly ruled against Schulz because he was *wrong,* so they must not have read his petition and briefs carefully enough. So it's time to:

1. Use more exclamation marks.

2. Use more capital letters, bolding, italics, and underlining.

3. Use words like "criminal" and "treason" to describe everyone (including judges) who disagrees.

In other words, it's time to get shrill.

[Joey Smith]

All petitions for rehearing say the same thing:

"You ruled against me; therefore, ipso facto you were wrong."

[Dezcad]

Schulz writes:
The Record before the Court demonstrates that
without a declaration by this Court of the full
contours of the Right to Petition, based on the
Framers’ intent, the Executive and Legislative
branches will have been successful in transforming
the nation from a constitutional republic to a
democracy, emphatically eschewed by the Founders
in the interest of limited government, popular
sovereignty and individual Rights, Freedoms and
Liberties. (color added)

Great, when do I get to start voting on Bills in Congress?

[The Observer]

Even better, when do I get to start ruling on Schulz' motions and appeals?

[Dezcad]

From WTP. I haven't read the petition yet, but the trailer is promising:

“SHAMEFUL AND TREASONOUS”
Petition for Rehearing Filed
in Landmark Right-to-Petition Case

Taking advantage of one final procedural step to ask the U.S. Supreme
Court to hear the landmark Right to Petition case, on February 1st
Bob Schulz filed a Petition for Rehearing.

“According to its own precedent, this Court would be abdicating its duty and committing treason to the Constitution if it fails to [accept jurisdiction
and hear this case]” wrote Schulz. “Tyranny marks a government that
ignores its free People.”

Schulz also wrote that it would be “shameful” for the Court to fail to hear this first impression question of extreme public importance involving the interpretation
of the Constitution while agreeing to hear the probate/bankruptcy/defamation
case of Anna Nicole Smith.

“Shall the People in republican America, with its written Constitution for the protection of the public Rights and a body of strictly limited powers, now be forbidden to do that which the Framers’ intended?” asked Schulz.

You forgot the real reason behind that posting on WTP:

Please consider a donation to help finance the work
of the WTP Foundation.

[Disilloosianed]

I figured everyone understood that one

My favorite part of the petition is the footnote cite to "Common Knowledge" by the way.

[grixit]

8.2 on the Van Meter! I should have gotten one of these years ago!

[silversopp]

8.2 on the Van Meter! I should have gotten one of these years ago!

I'm waiting on ordering until the Van Pelt Meter is released. Early reviews on it are quite favorable.

[Trippy]

More idiocy from Schulz ... and a veiled threat, to top it off. (Law enforcement may wish to take note.) All bolding or emphasis is mine.

This Friday, Feb. 22nd:
SCOTUS To Reconsider Landmark WTP v. US
Next Sunday: Schulz to Speak in MA

On Friday, February 22 the Supreme Court of the United States will decide Bob Schulz’s Petition for Rehearing of its January 7th decision not to hear We the People v. United States, the case demanding a declaration by the Court of the original intent of the last ten words of the First Amendment, to wit: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the Freedom…or the Right of the People…and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.”

“The intent of the Framer’s of the Constitution – our Founding Fathers – in capping the First Amendment with those ten words is clear to all who take the time to review the historical record,” said Bob Schulz. “The demonstrable as well as common sense intent was that the clause would provide individuals with a constitutional guarantee of the natural Right (power) of a free People to peacefully hold the Government accountable to each and every provision of the seven Articles and Amendments to the Constitution, without harassment or retaliation by the Government. That is, the exercise of Petitioning for Redress would serve as the non-violent protector of all other Rights, Freedoms and Liberties, forestalling any necessity for individuals to resort to violence in defense of the Constitution.”

Government, the ominous, omniscient enemy of Freedom, does not favor accountability. Our Government is no exception to the rule. This is the only rational explanation for the failure of the Executive and Legislative departments to respond to our Petitions for Redress, and the failure of the Supreme Court to hear our case, i.e., to avoid having to publicly issue an honest declaration of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under the Petition Clause – the “government accountability clause.”

The matter is of the utmost importance. Our Constitution is all that stands between a free People and total tyranny.

However, regardless of the prodigious promise of its divine design, the parchment merely sits on the shelf, unable to defend itself, unable on its own to evince and maintain the magnificence of popular sovereignty and a servant government with strictly limited powers.

As it is in the natural order for every government to resist the chains upon its limited powers, it is also a necessity of nature that men remain forever vigilant in holding their governments accountable. This is a solemn responsibility that no People can elude and yet hope to remain free.

Should the Supreme Court continue to sidestep its constitutional duty to interpret the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment by denying the instant Petition for Rehearing, Bob Schulz and the We The People Congress will immediately turn their attention and resources to the organization and implementation of large-scale, wide-spread acts of “civil disobedience.”

A Government that fails to listen or respond to the People is not fit to rule a Free People.

Although our Natural Rights may be abridged or “forgotten” over time, they remain fundamental forces of Nature that will not be denied. Where governments cannot be held accountable, Freedom cannot exist. As our Founders knew well, the Right to Petition enables the peaceful dominion of Men over the servant governments they create to secure their Rights, Freedoms and Liberties.

Next Sunday, February 24, from noon to 3 PM, Bob Schulz will be at the Colonial Inn in Concord, Massachusetts to discuss the matter at hand. Everyone is encouraged to attend this most serious meeting. There is no charge to attend. WTP will not be providing any food or beverage. The meeting will be all “business.”

... The meeting will be held at:

Sunday, Feb. 24, Noon - 3 PM

Colonial Inn
4848 Monument Square
Concord, MA 01742
(978) 369-9200

In addition, arrangements are underway for Bob to be in Texas and Idaho on weekends in early March for similar purposes. Details soon.

Please consider a donation. Your generous support is all that keeps our important work moving forward.

[Disilloosianed]

Captain wrote:

Christ Almighty! Can't we just toss Schultz in the loony-bin and be done with all of his horse-sh*t already?

Unfortunately, he has too many followers. I have some that discuss their "Landmark Appeal" in their tp filings. Whenever I see them, I never fail to ask how that's going for them.

[grixit]

Um, freedom is a "force of nature"? Yeah, the Big Bang was kicked off by a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which foced the release of particles imprisoned in the primal singularity.

[wserra]

Um, freedom is a "force of nature"? Yeah, the Big Bang was kicked off by a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which foced the release of particles imprisoned in the primal singularity.

Let my leptons go.

[Dr. Caligari]

A Government that fails to listen or respond to the People is not fit to rule a Free People.

The Government did listen to you, Bob, and did respond. The response was "no."

[Famspear]

Bob Schulz wrote:

Government, the ominous, omniscient enemy of Freedom [ . . . ]

Interesting.

Ominous means "of or serving as an omen; esp., having the character of an evil omen; threatening; sinister". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 992, World Publishing Co. (2d Coll. Ed. 1978). Is this, perhaps, Schulz's only view of the nature of government?

Omniscient means "having infinite knowledge [ . . .] knowing all things" - as in "the Omniscient God". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 993, World Publishing Co. (2d Coll. Ed. 1978). Schulz believes that government has "infinite knowledge"??

Government is the "enemy of Freedom"? Then why did our Founding Fathers push for the institution of the government under the Constitution we now have? Perhaps Schulz should re-read the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [ . . . ]

(bolding added).

Dear Schulz-ie-poo: Get a clue. The purpose of government is to provide for the security of natural rights - including but not limited to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government is not necessarily or inherently the enemy of freedom. The very purpose for which government is created is to secure the natural rights which are the essence of freedom. Yes, governmental power is sometimes abused. And that is why we must take care to see that governmental power is executed under the rule of law.

[ASITStands]

Government is the "enemy of Freedom"? Then why did our Founding Fathers push for the institution of the government under the Constitution we now have? Perhaps Schulz should re-read the Declaration of Independence:

Schulz would argue the government no longer guarantees the freedoms enumerated in the declaration or constitution but actively takes them away. Whether that's posturing for the sake of raising money is the question.

In the case of Bob Schulz, I think he truly believes the government is the enemy.

I also agree with 'Dr. Caligari:'

The Government did listen to you, Bob, and did respond. The response was "no."

It's difficult to admit the government's already answered his petition. Admitting means bringing a halt to fund raising, and it means admitting the government's been right in its theory of taxation.

How you say, "Too much Kool-Aid?"