We The People .... Must STOP Those Endangering America and Humanity

[understandinglife]

Endangering America

By Larry C Johnson

September 23, 2005

George Bush got it partially right yesterday (Thursday, September 22) when he said that mistakes made by three of his predecessors, including the Reagan administration, had emboldened terrorists and helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks. Unfortunately he ignored the role his own actions have played in making terrorism worse and pushing the Middle East to the brink of a new war. Instead, the President blindly insisted that he is taking America on the right path in Iraq to confront the threat of terrorism. On that point he is wrong; dead wrong.

Why is he wrong? The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is doing the exact opposite of what Bush says U.S. policy was supposed to achieve:

• Instead of reducing terrorism, Islamic terrorism is spreading dramatically.

• Instead of winning new supporters for democracy, the war in Iraq is spurring the recruitment and training radical jihadists.

• Instead of creating a “City on the Hill” that other nations in the Middle East will emulate, Iraq is fissuring and setting the stage for a regional ethnic and religious civil war.

More at the link:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/09/endangering_ame.html

Mr Johnson is correct as are others and for that reason, I urge the following:

1. Bush and Blair announce their commitment to withdraw in an orderly and secure manner -- meaning protecting their troops and their gear. They also announce that no British or American citizen will remain in Iraq and will only be allowed to return if the Iraq government approves their visa and the purpose of their visit.

2. British and American logistics experts devise a secure, rapid withdrawal protocol.

3. They present the protocol to Bush and Blair and Bush and Blair order the process to begin.

4. Bush and Blair go to the UN and negotiate the creation of a multi-national "stability corps" that does not have a single American or British citizen in its ranks. Members of the UN Security Council, other than American and Britain, form a negotiating team to work with the various factions in Iraq on the steps necessary to establish an Iraqi Constitution and stabilize governance and restoration of the Country.

5. All of this is done in the open so that Iraqi's know, from the moment the USA and Britain begin step # 1 that the intention is to withdraw not just militarily, but from any form of manipulation of either the government or the economy of Iraq.

And, here is the most recent thread in which I proposed this course of action:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4840299

And, some additional context that makes it ever more obvious why we must extract our troops and citizens:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4840299&mesg_id=4849898

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4840299&mesg_id=4856526

So, when I have stated the need to commit to "immediate withdrawal," it means a commitment to withdraw in as timely a manner as the security of the troops and our citizens require - i.e., more than a few days, less than six months.

What matters is the total removal of not just our troops but all our citizens and the commitment to do that as quickly as possible.

If the Iraqi government or other Iraqi institutions want to do business, to have academic or other relationships with US enterprises or individual citizens, then appropriate visa and contractual relationships can be established.

But, until such time as they request participation of any US person, corporation, not-for-profit ....., we must not force them to have anything to do with us.

Going before the UN, making these types of commitments to the people of Iraq and the General Assembly will save American lives, will likely save Iraqi lives, will be an indication that America is returning to the rule of law, and may help the Iraqi factions to shape their future with the legitimate assistance of the international community.

But, how will these just and honorable actions ever be made real?

Today, Howard Dean provides a clear frame for righteous action.

His comments are directed toward the wimpout of many Dems regarding Roberts nomination, but they are relevant to every issue confronting each of us. He asks:

"But how will we win any battle if we don't stand up for what we believe and speak the truth."

Regarding the issue of Roberts, Howard Dean is terse and correct:

Senate Democrats waited for the Bush Administration to come clean about Roberts's record -- the administration chose not to. During the hearings, they asked Roberts serious, precise questions about his record and his views -- but Roberts dodged question after question.

Our Senate Leader, Harry Reid, is right: there are simply too many questions left unanswered. John Roberts, and the sham process that has accompanied his nomination, does not deserve our support.

DNC e-mail "Why bother to fight Roberts?"...
http://www.democrats.org/robertsletters

We must fight now and we must take full advantage of the collapsing Bush, Republican hegemony.

It is obviously unacceptable for any Democratic Senator to vote for Roberts - they have all been told that that is not the will of the people who are the reason they have a job.

Those Dems who, for whatever puke reasons, have stated they'll vote for this gas bag phony, Roberts, should not only change their vote they should all join together AND FILIBUSTER and they should procedurally block all other activity of the Senate and refuse to stop until Bush and Cheney and Frist and Delay - RESIGN.

The strategic "Why now?" to take a stand and refuse to compromise is obvious.

For starters, federal investigations are now underway involving Republicans in the White House (Rove, Libby, ???), and the Republican leadership of the Senate (Frist), and the House (DeLay).

How can we possibly allow an ideologue to be stuck on the SCOTUS for decades when the entire Republican leadership is under investigation for a wide variety of illegal activities. The crooks are about to appoint the number one judge in the country -- talk about irony. That irony cannot become reality.

]b]Do we have folk ready for action?

We know we have a significant number of our fellow citizens who are ready for action, including impeachment. And we have a very large number of our fellow Americans who are disgusted with Bush, his administration and his lackeys in the Senate and House.

We need to remind everyone we know that these criminals are spending our money and creating debt in our name. It's time for everyone to 'get it.'

It's OUR capital, as well as OUR capitol.

OK

The money and the infrastructure of the government belong to US (and, of course, all those folk in China, Japan and the Middle East with vaults stuffed with our Treasury certs).

Many, many of us and our fellow citizens already know we don't have a government, we have a corrupt, reckless, failed corporation.

Business-as-usual is totally unacceptable. It's time for us, the shareholders, to withdraw all our proxies, step forward, tell a bunch of folk they are fired, and reorganize both our representation and the priorities they must service.

For those who drone about 2006, 2008 .... give it a rest.

We must halt Bush and his gang, now.

We must not allow Bush and his gang another hour, let alone another 13 months, to do any more harm to us, to our environment, to other nations. They simply must be held accountable now.

And that brings us all to the simple gut-check.

When all the talk, and protest songs and bravado on the blogs and .... are done, the reality each of you cannot escape is quite simple.

It is about money - our money and the debt other people are attempting to force not just upon us but on those who will consider themselves truly unfortunate to be born in the USA -- unless we act now.

Bad news for those that want to deny or dance or keep talking - We are at that gut-check moment that Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine and their colleagues understood comprehensively.

Nifty protest songs and slogan T-shirts and cool posters, and flowers in gun barrels and profound blogs and speeches on sunny, leafy autumn afternoons are nice -- but they are now irrelevant.

If any of you want to halt war-criminal-in-chief and torturer-in-chief Bush and his vast corporate enablers then you need to do one and only one thing -- DON'T GIVE THEM ANOTHER PENNY OF YOUR MONEY.

It's NOT the 'economy' stupid. It's the fact that you give these folk your money to turn your life to shit. Got it.

When 1000s of DUers and 10000000s of our fellow citizens get that and are willing to use the resultant leverage, then America will begin to walk the talk.

I admire so many of the folk who post at DU and I consider what Skinner and his colleagues have created to be a truly remarkable and essential service to America and humanity. However, if thousands of DUers and millions of our fellow citizens are unwilling to keep feeding the beast, then I am wasting time and bandwidth posting commentary on the obvious.

What I have done is prepare a rough draft version of the pamphlet entitled -- "We The People ... Have No Clothes"; A pamphlet for every American Citizen.

It is being critiqued by some fellow DUers and other colleagues.

And, I've already been asked, "so what do you recommend people do" after they have read the pamphlet. My response is, once they have read the pamphlet they will be ready to begin a discussion about "how We The People join together to control the use of tax revenue -- their money."

Prior to today, I had not planned to include a chapter explicitly addressing that issue, however upon reading two items that I include in this post while watching the accelerating failure of our government as Rita plows toward the Gulf Coast and Iraq spirals toward civil war, I've decided to be explicit about our money and how it is used.

Since it will be awhile before I have sufficient input to determine whether the pamphlet is worthy of broad distribution, rather than just being something a few friends found more inducing of sleep than action, let me share with you the writings of Reza Fiyouzat and "Citizen Spook."

The question of taxation must be remarried overtly to the political dimension that it does possess. One need only remember that a pillar of the American Revolution and the War of Independence that a third of the population of the original colonies conducted against the British overlords, was crystallized into the slogan, 'No Taxation without Representation!'

And quite rightly so, too. Surely there must be some difference between a legitimate government of the people, for the people, by the people on the one hand, and, on the other, a bunch of racketeers. No government or state authority should be allowed to take anyone's money as 'taxes,' for which no political representation is offered, or, worse, with which instruments of oppression of those very taxpayers are acquired.

The problem with the American Revolution was that it was (in reality and not in slogans) demanding that representation be extended only to a tiny minority at the top of the society. The original inhabitants of the continent, the American Indians, were to be slaughtered further and their lands stolen in increasing amounts. Slaves were to be kept slaves. Further, women, working classes, and huge majorities of non-property-owning classes did not acquire any representation for the taxation that continued to be levied against them, now by the Founding Fathers. But, we can revisit that slogan and give it a positively different quality all together.

We can demand a new system of taxation be instituted, whereby every year, as people file their taxes, they also file a 'priority list,' submitting to the government their instructions for spending their money. In other words, at the same time as they hand over their money they dictate to the government the order of priorities for the expenditure of their money. So, for example, when I hand over my money to the IRS, I likewise hand over my instructions to the effect that of the taxes I have paid, the government must spend 25 percent of it on education for immigrants who are not documented; 25 percent on the health of the same population; 20 percent on environmental clean up efforts in poor neighborhoods and towns; 10 percent on infrastructure building in poor neighborhoods and towns; 10 percent on research into diseases; and 10 percent on the proliferation of artistic activities among the elderly. Individuals can choose any number of priorities, and rank them in any percentage they deem necessary. Citizens may even give any percentage of their taxes to go toward reparations to the victims of imperialist powers. This new definition of taxation is something that brings about unities that will clarify the class divisions, almost immediately.

Much more at the link:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/091705Fiyouzat/091705fiyouzat.html

This excerpt from Reza Fiyouzat essay is meant to capture the spirit and direction he then uses to discuss a variety of outcomes of proposing that all Americans give some thought to how their money is being used.

"Citizen Spook," provides a detailed historical and legal analysis of how "We The People" relinquished control of our Nation's monetary system in 1913.

I am posting a segment from the introduction and concluding comments, here, and in a Comment I will post the full text - permission, in fact encouragement to do so, is explicitly stated by CS at his blogsite.

Prologue

We the people give the Constitution its life force. It is our breathe that animates the document's respiration and by force of will we do the same for the government which is also ours. It is not the other way around. The government does not own us. We have the power to change things. We are not helpless to correct wrongs. We are not helpless to bring nourishment to the Constitution when that child of ours is starving for food of thought and attention to its coming demise, which if left to happen, will be the end of our nation and all of us individually.

All of the problems we are facing come from the neglect we are responsible for allowing. The government is out of control and its anarchy is bipartisanly evident simply by looking at the national debt clock. We do not have control of our nation because we do not have control of our nation's money. In 1913 we gave control and ownership of the nation's monetary independence to a private banking cartel bearing the misleading moniker, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, whose owners are not the federal government and whose vaults do not contain any reserves.

The IRS became the enforcement protector of this institution which collects the fruits of our livelihood and plunders such fruit to a pirate banking cartel, some of whom are apparently foreign nationals.

The American people pay their taxes each year because they love this country and honestly believe their federal income tax dollars are providing the infrastructure to keep this great nation going. Until the American properly educated to the true destination of their tax dollars, any attempt to educate them to either the possibility that the IRS code does not require a yearly income tax to be individually paid directly to the government or to the possible unconstitutional use of the IRS code will be met by derision and supported by a federal conspiracy of sanction and silence.

The ultimate purpose of the petition for redress is to exercise our will that the government openly address our grievances. In order to accomplish that goal we must access the courts via pleadings which state genuine controversies and claims upon which relief may be granted. Whether that "redress" is ever actually granted is secondary in importance to forcing the courts to openly discuss the merits of the "grievances" listed in the petition which concern conflicting IRS code provisions and the constitutionality of imposing a federal income tax on domestic income of the American people.

The "We The People Foundation" petition failed to state claims upon which, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and controlling Supreme Court precedent, relief might be granted. Regardless, Judge Sullivan's opinion is very educational and serves as an alluring enticement of "We the People" to rethink strategy for the purpose of submitting a new and improved petition for redress of grievances regarding the federal income tax laws and the Federal Reserve banking system.

<clip>

While the historical record pertaining to the inalienable right to petition the government for a redress of grievances indicates that such a right implies a right to a response, the Constitution does not enumerate such a right and therefore the judicial branch has no power to compel the legislative and executive branches to listen or respond to the American people's petitions for redress.

Furthermore, asking for answers to questions does not indicate a genuine case or controversy to which the district court is authorized to act upon. Any future petition for a redress of grievances must demand actual redress. The redress requested should include;

- the return of wealth taken by the government

- upon the government to restrain any further unconstitutional taking of wealth

- injunctions upon the government to restrain any further taking of wealth via improper application of the IRS code

- revocation of defective IRS code provisions

- any other redress which raises a genuine case or controversy that can only be addressed by a petition of the government to redress grievances

<clip>

Of course, the American people would love to pay less taxes, but, for the most part, they accept a patriotic duty to pay taxes. Trumpeting arguments to them that they don't have to pay income taxes because of obscure technical issues involved with the 54000 page IRS monstrosity will never garner the massive support needed to change things, despite the substantive truth of the argument. The devil is in the details.

The new plan calls for a clear and concise explanation of the following:

a. the private nature of the Federal Reserve Bank, its stockholders and the inherent unconstitutional nature of fractional reserve banking

b. the ratio of federal income tax dollars used to pay off the fictional, unconstitutional and oppressive national debt versus the sums proportioned for civil administration, roads, military and other vital purposes of the federal government

c. the true history of the Constitution's taxing authority and the Supreme Court's decisions regarding such authority prior to and after the 16th amendment

d. the history of the IRS code, with specific focus on the "861" argument and the codes which have evolved in relation to it

e. the history supporting the first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Once the American people understand that they have been robbed blind and that the money they thought was being used to run the government is actually being funneled, in a manner that would make Enron's frauds seem paltry, to the vaults of a few private banking institutions, the people will wake up and join the million (person) petition for a redress of grievances. The power is with the people, but unless the people use that power it remains dormant. We haven't awoken enough people to their proactive power as the respiratory system of the Constitution and the government. In order to make the government submissive to the will of the people, the people must be educated.

Once the American people are educated to the concept that the toil of their labor can be used for their own prosperity, rather than the prosperity of a few banking cartels and their lackeys, the American people will wake up and do the right thing. And then the current Federal Reserve system, along with its enforcers in the IRS, will be eliminated along with the faux national debt.

Link:

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/09/we-people-v-us-re-judge-sullivans.html

Time for each of you to make a decision.

It's your toil that results in a transfer of capital. Some to you, some to the government.

You are likely quite deserving of the portion you receive. It is obvious the current government is not.

If you want to continue ordering a cheese burger and being served a sewer burger by your government -- well, it's 'a democracy' and you just voted with your life.

Be certain, they'll take the money and let you die.



http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/09/category-911.html



Peace.

[undergroundpanther]

1. But how

How do we stop them?

We can say what we want but Bush thinks he does not have to listen.THe Dem's have not fought Bush hard enough it's like they know something we don't.Bush's posse has weapons for crowd control they are prepared for civil unrest. And they have been making viruses in US bio labs,They have the power of nightmares because Bush co manufactures nightmares to secure their own power. It only takes a few generations for knowledge to be lost.Already the fundies are dumbing down the kids,and when Bush co crash civilization a new era of magical thinking left by the vacuum of ignorance will let these elites be seen as gods once everyone forgets the technology and ability to use logic and see through rhetoric and abuses of power...
Sad to say if we want freedom we haven't time to waste.If people in the government lack conscience than it is up to we the people to impose it upon our government,regardless of tazers,black water mercenaries.psy-ops or FT Dietrich manufactured bio weapons..

[understandinglife]

3. How? By collectively denying them any capital, that's how.

Peace.

[understandinglife]

2. Full CS post:

Monday, September 19, 2005

WE THE PEOPLE v. US - Re: Judge Sullivan's Decision -- An Open Letter To The "We The People Foundation".

The "We The People Foundation" sponsored the aforementioned case which was recently dismissed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 04-1211.

The attorney who represented the plainittifs today filed a response regarding the District Court's decisions. The response is as defective as the pleadings that were filed and which were properly dismissed:

"In assessing the importance of this matter we must remember that whatever legal arguments have been posed or considered, the Court ultimately relied upon the Government's statement that the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances no longer exists.

Of course, we intend to seek a review of that decision by a higher court. In the meantime, however, it is now the law of the land that your right to petition the Government has been abolished by the executive and judicial branches of the your Government.

Mark Lane"

This is a vast mistatement of Judge Sullivan's accurate opinion. I am directing the following exhaustive analysis to the We The People Foundation and their attorney, Mark Lane, in the hope that they will reconsider their post dismissal statement and react accordingly.

Citizen Spook has thoroughly reviewed the pleadings and the District Court's opinion.

This case was properly dismissed according to controlling legal precedent. However, the "We The People Foundation" must be congratulated for scoring an important victory which is discerned by a thorough review of Judge Sullivan's historic and remarkable opinion which acts as map for a new and improved first amendment petition for a redress of grievances as to the federal income tax problem.

I hope that the plaintiffs and their attorney, Mark Lane, will review this report and withdraw their appeal in favor a new and improved version of this lawsuit.

PROLOGUE

We the people give the Constitution its life force. It is our breathe that animates the document's respiration and by force of will we do the same for the government which is also ours. It is not the other way around. The government does not own us. We have the power to change things. We are not helpless to correct wrongs. We are not helpless to bring nourishment to the Constitution when that child of ours is starving for food of thought and attention to its coming demise, which if left to happen, will be the end of our nation and all of us individually.

All of the problems we are facing come from the neglect we are responsible for allowing. The government is out of control and its anarchy is bipartisanly evident simply by looking at the national debt clock. We do not have control of our nation because we do not have control of our nation's money. In 1913 we gave control and ownership of the nation's monetary independence to a private banking cartel bearing the misleading moniker, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, whose owners are not the federal government and whose vaults do not contain any reserves.

The IRS became the enforcement protector of this institution which collects the fruits of our livelihood and plunders such fruit to a pirate banking cartel, some of whom are apparently foreign nationals.

The American people pay their taxes each year because they love this country and honestly believe their federal income tax dollars are providing the infrastructure to keep this great nation going. Until the American pproperly educated to the true destination of their tax dollars, any attempt to educate them to either the possibility that the IRS code does not require a yearly income tax to be individually paid directly to the government or to the possible unconstitutional use of the IRS code will be met by derision and supported by a federal conspiracy of sanction and silence.

The ultimate purpose of the petition for redress is to exercise our will that the government openly address our grievances. In order to accomplish that goal we must access the courts via pleadings which state genuine controversies and claims upon which relief may be granted. Whether that "redress" is ever actually granted is secondary in importance to forcing the courts to openly discuss the merits of the "grievances" listed in the petition which concern conflicting IRS code provisions and the constitutionality of imposing a federal income tax on domestic income of the American people.

The "We The People Foundation" petition failed to state claims upon which, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and controlling Supreme Court precedent, relief might be granted. Regardless, Judge Sullivan's opinion is very educational and serves as an alluring enticement of "We the People" to rethink strategy for the purpose of submitting a new and improved petition for redress of grievances regarding the federal income tax laws and the Federal Reserve banking system.

The first amendment states, in part:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people to...petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No statute may prevent "the people" from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Unlike statutory laws which seek to limit the American people's access to the courts, for example, the Anti Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Constitution does not limit the subject matter of the first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in any way.


The Constitution also does not guarantee that such a petition will be successful. Indeed, a fair reading of Supreme Court precedent indicates a response to any petition for a redress of grievances is not even required by the government. So, in order to maximize the potential success of any future attempt to use the first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the "controversy" must be brought in the name of a much larger set of plaintiffs who pay their taxes and are thoroughly educated regarding the Federal Reserve/IRS nexus.


To see our government returned to its natural benevolent form, a critical mass is necessary. Without such a grassroots movement, the federal behemoth that we the people have created will devour all who come before it.


1. ANALYSIS OF JUDGE SULLIVAN'S DECISION


Warning to the "We the People Foundation"; your appeal is doomed and should not be carried forward. Instead, the proper approach is to start over from scratch with a larger set of plaintiffs and a complete overhaul of strategy.

The "We the People Foundation" petition made two basic claims; the first was for a redress of grievances regarding the government's repeated failure to answer legitimate questions about the income tax laws, while the second claim pertained to various enforcement actions taken by the government against plaintiffs for failing to pay taxes or submit returns.

Judge Sullivan stated that, in both cases, the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Sullivan reinforced this decision by citing controlling Supreme Court precedent. In passing, he also discussed various statutes which generally limit access to the courts regarding disputes concerning the federal tax laws.

Despite the fact that your pleadings were naive and did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted, you deserve credit for scoring an important victory; the judicial branch actually took your lawsuit seriously and responded. Furthermore, it appears that Judge Sullivan's decision provides implied guidance on how to cure the defective nature of your petition.

The results of your petition should not be underestimated nor should they be tested again by the Court of Appeals under the pleadings you originally submitted. To resubmit these pleadings to the Court of Appeals would only damage the chances of a better suit prevailing. Take a small victory now and use it as the basis for a much bigger one later.

The "Statement Of Facts" in the petition alleges two separate forms of grievance:

A) THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS THE PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

B) THE RETALIATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGAINST PLAINTIFFS FOR PETITIONING THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

We shall examine "part B" first.

THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION GRIEVANCES

Let's first examine Judge Sullivan's decision as it pertains to the petition's grievances regarding various enforcement actions your plaintiffs have suffered by not paying taxes or filing returns. Your petition sought an injunction restraining the government from prosecuting plaintiffs who, by virtue of their not paying taxes or filing returns, were subjected to various forms of prosecution by the IRS and the DOJ.

The Supreme Court has made it quite clear in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) that:

" defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness, need not be heard by the jury, and if they are, an instruction to disregard them would be proper. For this purpose, it makes no difference whether the claims of invalidity are frivolous or have substance."

It is well established in the federal courts that a challenge to the Constitutionality of the federal income tax laws will not be allowed as a defense against willful failure to pay the tax even if the arguments you present have substance. Your slogan, "No Answers, No Taxes", which appears at your site, certainly is one approach to the problem, but that approach is likely to get anybody who follows it thrown in jail. So please stop advocating it.

I know it's frustrating to be consistently ignored by the government when you're asking legitimate questions. But encouraging others to not pay the federal income tax or to file "sly" returns trying to game the system based upon your personal understanding of the system, no matter how evil that system may be, is the wrong approach.

Judge Sullivan's decision correctly cites much controlling precedent for the following proposition:

"Plaintiffs do not...have a first amendment right to withhold money owed to the government and to avoid governmental enforcement actions because they object to government policy."

Judge Sullivan cited numerous case law to support this proposition which is totally consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Cheek v.US.

The pleadings which sought to petition the Government to redress the grievances related to enforcement actions prosecuted against your plaintiffs never stood a chance in hell of surviving a summary motion to dismiss.

Judge Sullivan:

"Congress has provided methods for challenging the legality of such enforcement actions and prevent governmental abuse...Citizens have a right of action for lawful levies or other collection actions and for wrongful failure to release liens. Id. at 7426(a). And taxpayers may sue to recover money erroneously or illegally assessed or collected by the government. Id. at 7422(a)."

In theory, plaintiffs could pay the income tax and thereafter file suit to recover it based upon the "861" concepts and/or "Article 1:Section 8" Constitutional arguments.

The problem with this approach is that many people who have tried it have been subjected to harassment for filing "frivolous" law suits.

So it's a catch 22. But there is a way around it which will be discussed below.

GRIEVANCES RELATED TO GOVERNMENTAL FAILURE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

Your other claim petitioned "the judicial branch" to compel "the executive or legislative branches" to answer your questions regarding federal tax laws. This aspect of the petition did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted for two reasons:

a) The petition was not Constitutionally sound because it requested that the judicial branch compel the defendants to respond to your petition. Nothing in the Constitution gives the judicial branch such authority. Nothing written in the Constitution establishes that the legislative and executive branches must listen to your petition to redress grievances. The first amendment only says that your right to "petition" can't be "abridged."

In that regard, you didn't make a petition for a redress upon which the judicial branch had the power to act. Your suit was dismissed because you asked the judicial branch to force the other branches to do something -- "answer your questions" -- which the judicial branch has no authority to compel them to do.

If your petition had requested, for example, redress in the form of a refund of taxes previously paid, while the petition might ultimately have failed as to the merits, it would not have failed on procedural grounds, and might therefore have had the effect of procuring judicial review and response to the underlying issues regarding the legality of the federal income tax laws. And procuring such an open judicial review must be considered the holy grail of this type of petition.

Judge Sullivan was correct in holding that your requests did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted because he was bound to follow the Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 (1979):

"Plaintiffs contend that they therefore have a constitutional right to a response to the petitions they have filed with the various defendants...The Supreme Court, however, has held that 'the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it.' 441 U.S. 463, 465 (1979)."

I don't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Smith case because, based upon the historical record pertaining to the right of the people to "petition the government for a redress grievances", it appears obvious that the framers intended that the right to petition implied a right to a response. The right to petition does not include a "right to be successful" as to the petition for redress, but if it is a right at all, it must imply a "right" to a response.

It was the British Crown's blatant unwillingness to respond to the colonists' "petitions to redress grievances" which caused the American revolution in the first place. From the Columbia University Free Press Encyclopedia:

"Official acts that colonists considered infringements upon their rights had previously led to the Stamp Act Congress (1765) and to the First Continental Congress (1774), but these were predominantly conservative assemblies that sought redress from the crown and reconciliation, not independence. The overtures of the First Continental Congress in 1774 came to nothing, discontent grew, and as the armed skirmishes at Lexington and Concord (Apr. 19, 1775) developed into the American Revolution, many members of the Second Continental Congress of Philadelphia followed the leadership of John Hancock, John Adams, and Samuel Adams in demanding independence."

Now have a look at what the Declaration of Independence says:

"The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World...

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury..."

The right to petition the government was then, and is now, an "inalienable right". The preservation of that right was so important to the founding fathers that they put it in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. When you consider that they chose to go to war with the Crown as a direct result of their grievances not being "listened to" and "responded to", it boggles the mind that the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that "the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen to respond" to petitions for a redress of grievances by the American people.

The Supreme Court's decision in Smith held that the government, as far as the Constitution is concerned, does not have to listen or respond to the petitions of the people for a redress of grievances. Essentially, because of this decision, the first amendment is construed by the Supreme Court ( and therefore all lower courts) as only protecting your right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, while they deny a right to a response. Regardless, their decision in Smith is limited in its application to the legislative and executive branches.

The judicial branch, on the other hand, does have to listen and respond to first amendment petitions for redress of grievances because of their enumerated constitutional powers to hear genuine controversies (Article 3, Section. 2, Clause 1; explained in detail below). This is evidenced by the fact that the District Court listened to and considered the "We the People Foundation" petition and also responded with a well documented and legally sound seven page opinion.

b) The redress requested was "answers" to "questions". Such relief does not present a legitimate "controversy" which is required before federal courts may issue rulings.

A petition for "redress" must be a petition for change, or a petition to correct rather than clarify.

Redress is defined as:

1. To set right; remedy or rectify.

2. To make amends to.

3. To make amends for. See Synonyms at correct.

4. To adjust (a balance, for example).

The "We the People Foundation" petition sought "redress" in the form of answers to questions. "Answers" alone, to the questions presented in the petition, would not remedy or rectify the illegality of the federal income tax laws.

The subtextural purpose of your petition was to corner the defendants and make them answer your questions about the federal tax laws. "Questions" imply that the plaintiffs are confused. This may not actually be the case, since the plaintiffs, through their published literature, do subjectively believe that their understanding of the income tax laws are accurate.

Regardless, the "grievances" that your "petition" plead in this part of the complaint demanded that the court compel the other two branches of government to answer questions. The only grievance the court could possibly imply, based upon this aspect of the pleadings, was that plaintiffs didn't "understand" the laws and were demanding that the government "explain" the laws. The grievance was presented as a character of the plaintiff's subjective intelligence. How could the court possibly order the government to end your confusion?

Redress is defined above. The answers plaintiffs sought to compel would not "make amends" or "adjust" the laws. The answers might clarify the plaintiffs' understanding, but your misunderstanding is not a "grievance" to which the court has enumerated powers apply redress.

In considering the government's summary motion to dismiss your complaint, Judge Sullivan was required to construe all of the alleged facts listed in your complaint as being true:

" 'Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings, the court must accept as true all of the complaint's factual allegations.' Johnson v. District of Columbia, 190 F. Supp. 2d 34, 39 (D.D.C. 2002)."

While Judge Sullivan's opinion does not validate that the federal tax laws are constitutionally and statutorily flawed, for purposes of the summary motion to dismiss, he was required to accept that all of plaintiffs' factual allegations were true. Having done that, the motion to dismiss had to be granted because the redress you requested, answers to your questions, is not actually redress at all. The best characterization is that you requested the court to force the other branches to issue an advisory opinion. The judicial branch is specifically barred from issuing advisory opinions (discussed in detail below). Article III of the constitution so limits their jurisdiction, so how could they possibly compel the other branches to issue advisory opinions?

To be procedurally correct, the form of redress you request must be something that the court's enumerated powers allows them to grant. Had you asked that the constitutionally flawed laws be "corrected" or "amended", the court, at that stage of the proceeding, being required by law to accept your factual allegations as being true, would have been forced to deny the motion to dismiss.

By requesting that the judicial branch compel the defendants in the other branches to "answer" your "questions", you have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.

STATUTES REFERENCED IN JUDGE SULLIVAN'S OPINION

Judge Sullivan, in dismissing the petition, also referred to the Anti Injunction Act which states that no suit brought for "the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person".

He also cited the Declaratory Judgement Act for precedent that United States courts, which would otherwise have power to decide the rights of Parties in genuine controversies, have no power to "declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration..." "with respect to federal taxes".

The pleadings in the "We the People" case were further defective because they played directly into the hands of these two statutes. Below, I will discuss ways to cure these defects.

2. THE NEW PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

While the federal courts have consistently dismissed, often with sanctions attached, taxpayer suits to recover taxes paid via "tax protestor" arguments for being frivolous, the majority of those suits are brought under traditional statutory access to the courts as opposed to a formal first amendment "petition for a redress of grievances." Indeed, the complaint filed by the "We The People Foundation", by its very wording, does not even make a formal "petition for a redress of grievances" to the judicial branch of the government.

The title of your complaint reads:

"AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, EQUITABLE RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF"

While various individual counts mention previous "petitions for redress" by your plaintiffs to the executive and legislative branches, the actual complaint that you filed is not a formal first amendment "petition for redress of grievances".

I will continue to refer to your complaint as a "petition" throughout this report, but the distinction must be understood clearly before you can truly understand the proper manner to procedurally approach the court that will trigger the powers enumerated to the federal courts by the constitution.

On the right side of every complaint filed in the federal courts, the complaint must be written in big bold letters. In the next incarnation of this lawsuit you must word your complaint as follows:

"COMPLAINT: FIRST AMENDMENT PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES"

That statement should be followed by specific requests for redress in the form of money or injunctive relief. As long as the suit is brought under the first amendment right to petition for a redress of grievances, it will be unique and distinguishable from the multitude of statutory suits that come before the federal courts.

Regardless of the failure of your complaint to state that the lawsuit was a formal petition of the judicial branch for a redress of grievances, Judge Sullivan's opinion in its impressive wisdom, discussed your complaint in light of your first amendment right to petition the government for redress and provided guidance for future litigants in this historic opinion.

The fact that the judicial branch listened to the arguments and responded to them with a seven page opinion, rather than ignoring you completely as per the Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, illustrates that the application of the holding in the Smith case is strictly limited to the executive and legislative branches.

In United States v. Microsoft, which was also decided in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the court stated:

"It is well settled that Article III of the United States Constitution limits this court's exercise of judicial power to "cases" and "controversies". U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968). Justiciability is the term of art employed to give expression to the limitation placed upon federal courts by the case-and-controversy doctrine." Id. at 95. "It is quite clear that 'the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the federal courts will not give advisory opinions.' Id. at 96 (quoting C. Wright. Federal Courts 34 (1963))."

Note that this is the same District Court Judge Sullivan sits on. The District court has no power to issue advisory opinions, and Judge Sullivan's opinion certainly did not dismiss the case on the grounds that the pleadings requested an advisory opinion. So it's obvious that the pleadings brought by the plaintiffs in the "We the People Foundation" suit raised justiciable issues and that the power exercised by the District Court in reviewing the pleadings was proper because the pleadings referred to genuine "cases and controversies".

But how can this be true when we consider the Supreme Court's holding in the Smith case? If the first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances does not require the government to listen or respond to the American people, as per the Supreme Court's holding in Smith, does that mean the District Court's seven page decision dismissing the case is simply an advisory opinion? The Supreme Court has clearly established that the federal courts may not issue advisory opinions, so, by virtue of the District Court actually ruling upon your petition, it's clear that a genuine "case or controversy" was recognized to exist.

Article 3, Section. 2, Clause 1:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party..."

The complaint involved a "controversy" to which the United States is a Party. And that's exactly why Judge Sullivan issued a decision. It's just that the controversy was defective on grounds other than justiciability.

Meriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines the legal meaning of the word "Controversy":

"Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives the judiciary the power to decide cases and controversies. Article III's limitation of the judicial power to cases or controversies requires that an action brought in the federal court involve parties with standing to sue and questions that are ripe and not moot."

Taxpayer lawsuits are often struck down on the grounds of "standing". "Standing" refers to the right of a certain party to bring suit. But for our purposes -- petitioning the government for redress of grievances under the first amendment -- standing is not an issue. We the people are guaranteed the right to petition and the Constitution does not limit the "grievances" we may bring or the "redress" we may request. We may not prevail, but we do not have to prove standing in this type of pleading and therefore a discussion as to the long line of legal precedent involved with "standing" is not necessary in this case.

Indeed, Judge Sullivan has given us guidance that the pleadings did, in fact, involve genuine "Article III" controversies when he discussed the Declaratory Judgment Act.

The Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees ("he first Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it." 441 U.S. 463, 465") cannot apply to the judicial branch since all petitions for a redress of grievances involve the United States as a Party to the controversy pleaded, and under the powers enumerated in Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, the judicial branch must listen to the people's petitions for redress of grievances and must respond to them.

The "We the People Foundation" complaint was not dismissed because the judicial branch wasn't required to listen and respond. It was dismissed because it truly did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted.

CURING THE PETITION'S DEFECTS

PART 1: Pay the tax first.

Plaintiffs should pay their taxes then file a traditional statutory lawsuit to recover those taxes they have submissively paid to the government.

The ideal plaintiffs would be those who paid the full amount of federal income tax assessed by the IRS followed by a failed suit to recover that money using an "861" or "Article 1:Section 8" argument. Plaintiffs who were also penalized for filing "frivolous" actions in trying to recover taxes paid would be even better suited to petition the government for a redress of grievances because they would have exhausted all other possibility of remedy discussed by Judge Sullivan in his opinion.

Then later, after those remedies have been judicially exhausted, having been left with no other option to voice their grievances, a formal first amendment petition for redress of grievances could not be dismissed or sanctioned for being frivolous since the first amendment guarantees the people's right to petition cannot be "abridged". Such plaintiffs will have the best chance of challenging the IRS code under the first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The District Court could not dismiss these cases for the same reasons listed in Judge Sullivan's opinion since the plaintiffs would have complied with the law in the first place.

Such a plaintiff would be insulated from Judge Sullivan's most potent and legally sound arguments for determining that the petitioner had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Furthermore, such a plaintiff could petition for a redress of both the tax paid and the penalty for bringing a frivolous suit.

The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If your lawsuit has been brought to the judicial branch as a formal "petition for redress of grievances" under the first amendment, whatever laws Congress may have enacted to punish so called "frivolous" tax protestor lawsuits will not be applicable. Your right to petition is completely protected by the first amendment.

The Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees 441 U.S. 463, 464:

"The First Amendment protects the right of an individual to speak freely, to advocate ideas, to associate with others, and to petition his government for redress of grievances...The government is prohibited from infringing upon these guarantees either by a general prohibition against certain forms of advocacy, NAACP v. Button, supra, or by imposing sanctions for the expression of particular views it opposes, e. g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)."

PART 2: The Anti Injunction Act And The Declaratory Injunction Act

There's two ways to avoid the reach of these acts.

1. Make sure to have separate counts listed in the pleadings of the next petition which do not ask for an injunction "to restrain the assessment or collection of any tax" and do not request any "Declaratory Judgments".

The plaintiffs should request redress, in one count of their petition, in the form of a refund of past federal income taxes paid. Such a request does not ask the court to "restrain the assessment or collection of any tax." The assessment and collection has already taken place. This particular count of the petition would not be asking for an injunction, which is an equity remedy. Rather, this count will demand a remedy in law, a monetary refund based upon a defective "statute", rather than a defective "assessment".

Another count in the petition would also request monetary damages, in the alternative, based upon a constitutional tort by alleging that the IRS code, if not defective via "861" arguments, must be unconstitutional under "Article 1:Section 8".

Neither of the above requests redress in the form of an injunction and therefore the Anti Injunction Act would not be applicable.

2. The petition should also include a separate count requesting an injunction to "restrain the assessment and collection" of future taxes in order to directly challenge, head on, the constitutionality of the Anti Injunction Act.

At first glance, Judge Sullivan's opinion appears to support a plenary ban, via the authority of the Anti Injunction Act, directed at any request to "restrain the assessment or collection of any tax" by requesting such an injunction in the courts. But that is not what Judge Sullivan's opinion says. His application of the Anti Injunction Act is limited to those plaintiffs who have taken the question of redress of grievances into their own hands by refusing to pay the income tax and/or failing to file tax returns. His opinion in this regard is specifically limited, by his own language, to this particular group of plaintiffs who asked the court to restrain the enforcement actions which resulted from their taking the law into their own hands.

Judge Sullivan cites a long list of precedent which stands for the well established rule of law which unequivocally states that the American people have no first amendment right to protest by not paying their taxes. It's quite obvious, that if there is to be any judicial review of the grievances we the people may have about the federal income tax laws, such review will not be forthcoming when we the people take the law into our own hands. And this is why it's imperative that, if the "We The People Foundation" are to lead the way in this struggle to petition our government for a redress of grievances, they must stop antagonizing the government, drop the slogan "No Answers, No Taxes" and encourage those who come to them for advice to pay their taxes and file honest returns.

We the people of the United States have not exhausted our possibilities within the letter of the laws of our nation. We have only just begun to fight. But the fight must exist within the very letter of the law. Perhaps there will come a time for a new "Declaration of Independence" from the federal government, but I hope that never comes because it will only come if the Constitution is killed. And at this moment in time, the Constitution, while suffering disease, is still alive and kicking.

So, following the aforementioned list of precedent, Judge Sullivan discusses his application of the Anti Injunction Act to the petition before the court:

"Moreover, the injunctive relief that plaintiffs seek, that is, 'a temporary injunction against the United States Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice and any other agency of the United States that arguably may act in this matter under color of law, from taking any further retaliatory actions against the named plaintiffs in this proceeding,' is clearly barred by the Anti Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C § 7421...("The Anti Injunction Act provides that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person'.)"

Judge Sullivan was very careful to limit the application of the Anti Injunction Act to the specific plaintiffs upon which retaliatory actions had been taken; the same set of plaintiffs who had broken the law. Judge Sullivan's opinion does not attach a blanket application to all plaintiffs in the petition.

Of course, the petition was dismissed for those plaintiffs as well, but according to the intelligent wording of Judge Sullivan's opinion, as to the plaintiffs who did not take the law into their own hands, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds for failing to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. The petition was only dismissed on substantive grounds for those plaintiffs who took the law into their own hands and were requesting that enforcement proceedings be restrained.

The most important case the petition cited was California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972). In that case, the Supreme Court made it clear that "the right to petition extends to all departments of government", and that "the right of access to the courts is...but one aspect of the right to petition." Id. at 510.

The judicial branch must listen and respond to the people's petition to the government for a redress of grievances when the petition raises a genuine "case or controversy". And the language of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people to...petition the Government for a redress of grievances" makes it clear that the Anti Injunction Act, a law made by Congress, cannot "abridge" the people's right to petition the government. As such, the district court certainly could not dismiss a formal petition for redress of grievances under the Anti Injunction Act alone.

Judge Sullivan's inclusion of the Anti Injunction Act and The Declaratory Judgement Act, in my opinion, acts as a clue to the mood of the court. Judge Sullivan, while dismissing the complaint on grounds that no claim was stated upon which relief might be granted, also included the Anti Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgement Act references, which, while certainly relevant to the specific defective pleadings in the petition before the court, were not necessary to dismiss the petition on strictly procedural grounds under FRCP 12(b) (6).

Those references are very educational for future first amendment petitions to the government for a redress of grievances regarding the federal income tax laws. Judge Sullivan has provided clear guidance that any such petition must, if it is to be justiciably impeccable, address these particular statutes properly since the statutes reflect the will of Congress, the elected representatives of the American people.

While the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person", Congress cannot restrain the courts from ruling on the merits of a complaint "to restrain the assessment or collection of taxes" with regards to a constitutionally protected first amendment formal petition for redress of grievances since the constitution guarantees that the people's right to petition cannot be "abridged".

Of course, petitioners must still prove that the "redress" they have requested is warranted on constitutional or statutory grounds. But once petitioners are over the hurdle of the Congressional prohibition on all courts against "maintaining" any suit to restrain the assessment and collection of any tax, the holy grail -- an open review of the various income tax problems -- must eventually be forthcoming.

This is really what we're hoping to achieve, an "on the record" judicial discussion concerned with the constitutionality of the federal income tax as well as a determination of the implications of "861" challenges to the IRS code.

The People's right to petition for a redress of grievances is guaranteed by the first amendment and cannot be abridged by the Anti Injunction Act. If the people believe that the IRS and the IRS code operate oppressively and against their inalienable rights as defined in the constitution, they must activate their first amendment right to petition the government to redress this grievance. The petition for redress is a genuine controversy which involves the taking of wealth by legislative means.

CONCLUSION

From Judge Sullivan's opinion:

"The Declaratory Judgement Act provides that 'in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to federal taxes ... any court of the United States ... may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief could be sought.' 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (Supp. III 1985) By their terms, these statutes

Judge Sullivan, by referencing the Declaratory Judgement Act and applying it to the plaintiffs' defective pleadings, provided important guidance which must be heeded by future plaintiffs accessing the courts by way of a formal first amendment petition for redress of grievances.

It's extremely important to consider the fact that the Judge's dismissal of this complaint need not have gone any further than stating that plaintiffs failed to present a claim upon which relief might be granted. Dismissal was certainly appropriate on this point alone. But Judge Sullivan went further than that, and in doing so he has pointed our attention towards the proper strategy for bringing a formal petition for redress of grievances under the first amendment in the federal courts.

The "mood of the court" to be gaged by Judge Sullivan's opinion appears to be one of guarded, but willing review. This is positively electrifying when you consider how easy it would have been for Judge Sullivan to simply ignore the petition entirely by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Smith, or, in the alternative, he might have dismissed the complaint with a two paragraph opinion highlighting the defective procedural application to the court.

Instead, Judge Sullivan laid it all out in clear language which was not antagonistic to the plaintiffs. I strongly believe that the number of plaintiffs who were willing to expose themselves by putting their names and addresses down on the "We the People Foundation" complaint registered with the District Court which acted compassionately by writing a thoroughly educational decision.

I believe the mood of the court reflected by Judge Sullivan's opinion exhibits a recognition that the court is aware of the confusing issues surrounding our federal income tax situation as well as the growing number of disenfranchised citizens effected by this confusion. It also reflects that the court is aware of thecult of "tax protestor" charlatans preying upon legitimately confused citizens and that such charlatans are swaying many citizens to subject themselves to IRS and DOJ prosecution by not filing legal returns and failing to pay taxes.

There are patriots sitting on our federal benches who are waiting for the American people to get this right and to bring a formal petition for redress of grievances before them so that our constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances can get to the bottom of this federal income tax dilemma that effects all of us. In order to reach those who might help us, we must come before them with clean hands, impeccable pleadings and superior precedent.

It is my sincere hope that the plaintiffs in the "We The People Foundation" lawsuit will not jeopardize future petitions by challenging Judge Sullivan's opinion in the Court of Appeals.

That would be a grave mistake. Judge Sullivan's decision is flawless regarding the dismissal of this petition. If the Court of Appeals finds any fault with Judge Sullivan's decision, it will not be addressed to the dismissal which will not be reversed. I guarantee that. And any counsel that reads Judge Sullivan's decision and encourages the plaintiffs to waste further resources as well as the court's time, ought to be fired.

Instead of reinstating the lawsuit, any opinion issued by the Court of Appeals, if it accepts review of Judge Sullivan's opinion, may quite possibly create precedent which will prevent the District Court from entertaining any such petition again. This would be a damn shame considering the mood of the District Court as evidenced by Judge Sullivan's opinion. The American people desperately need to access that court with proper pleadings in a complaint for a formal petition for redress of grievances. Your appeal, instead of opening the door for the current lawsuit, gravely risks the upper Court of Appeals shutting the door for future lawsuits in our face.

I hope the "We The People Foundation" will read between the lines and withdraw their petition. The door appears open for a District Court review on the merits of the federal income tax question if presented as a formal petition for a redress of grievances, but no such review will be forthcoming without complete purity of the plaintiffs who must submit flawless pleadings which do not offend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or United States Supreme Court precedent.

While the historical record pertaining to the inalienable right to petition the government for a redress of grievances indicates that such a right implies a right to a response, the Constitution does not enumerate such a right and therefore the judicial branch has no power to compel the legislative and executive branches to listen or respond to the American people's petitions for redress.

Furthermore, asking for answers to questions does not indicate a genuine case or controversy to which the district court is authorized to act upon. Any future petition for a redress of grievances must demand actual redress. The redress requested should include;

- the return of wealth taken by the government

- injunctions upon the government to restrain any further unconstitutional taking of wealth

- injunctions upon the government to restrain any further taking of wealth via improper application of the IRS code

- revocation of defective IRS code provisions

- any other redress which raises a genuine case or controversy that can only be addressed by a petition of the government to redress grievances

3. The plan to create a million man petition for a redress of grievances.

If we can educate the American people regarding the issues listed in the soon to be published pamphlet, COMMON SENSE AGAIN, we will get one million or more plaintiffs to join the next incarnation of this lawsuit.

Of course, the American people would love to pay less taxes, but, for the most part, they accept a patriotic duty to pay taxes. Trumpeting arguments to them that they don't have to pay income taxes because of obscure technical issues involved with the 54000 page IRS monstrosity will never garner the massive support needed to change things, despite the substantive truth of the argument. The devil is in the details.

The new plan calls for a clear and concise explanation of the following:

a. the private nature of the Federal Reserve Bank, its stockholders and the inherent unconstitutional nature of fractional reserve banking

b. the ratio of federal income tax dollars used to pay off the fictional, unconstitutional and oppressive national debt versus the sums proportioned for civil administration, roads, military and other vital purposes of the federal government

c. the true history of the Constitution's taxing authority and the Supreme Court's decisions regarding such authority prior to and after the 16th amendment

d. the history of the IRS code, with specific focus on the "861" argument and the codes which have evolved in relation to it

e. the history supporting the first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Once the American people understand that they have been robbed blind and that the money they thought was being used to run the government is actually being funneled, in a manner that would make Enron's frauds seem paltry, to the vaults of a few private banking institutions, the people will wake up and join the million man petition for a redress of grievances. The power is with the people, but unless the people use that power it remains dormant. We haven't awoken enough people to their proactive power as the respiratory system of the Constitution and the government. In order to make the government submissive to the will of the people, the people must be educated.

Once the American people are educated to the concept that the toil of their labor can be used for their own prosperity, rather than the prosperity of a few banking cartels and their lackeys, the American people will wake up and do the right thing. And then the current Federal Reserve system, along with its enforcers in the IRS, will be eliminated along with the faux national debt.

On average, each American family is said to owe approximately $275,000 towards the national debt while the seven plus TRILLION dollars allegedly owed to the banking cartels, for money we were forced to borrow from our own money tree, is to be divided up among a few banking institutions. When the American people are educated to understand that they must choose between standing up to these banking cartels by taking back their money tree and refusing to finance the very extortion being perpetrated upon them or living in complete servitude to the will of these bankers and their enforcement divisions, the American people will take the money and run...the government the way the framers intended it to be run.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/09/we-people-v-us-re-judge-sullivans.html

Peace.


Peace.

[hiley]

4. excellent

and well worth the read, all should absorb this information and make a decision..
We must ban together and stop financing our own total destruction.
solidarity

[BeHereNow]

5. HEH-HEH YEAH!

Withdrawing our FINANCIAL support as well as
our children (who are nothing more than cannon fodder to the BFEE)
will change EVERYTHING.
Think about it-
Can they POSSIBLY imprison us all?
Don't think so...they don't have room for all the prisoners
as it is.
BHN

[hiley]

7. no they sure can't imprison

all of us.

[BeHereNow]

9. Question is...

Can we unite in force in such an action
AND, are any of us willing to actually
GO to prison as the pioneers in such a movement?
I AM.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

10. Forgot to add-

Because I believe that a draft is inevitable.
under the neo-nazi-con agenda that will
include young women ,(I have an eighteen year old daughter)
and because I am a mentor to many of her friends who will also
likely be drafted, I will go to ANY lengths to protect them.
Including a prison term for doing what ever it takes to
prevent the beautiful young people in my life
becoming cannon fodder for the ILLEGAL war being
waged by the EVIL BFEE and their neocon nazis.
BHN

[understandinglife]

11. Your courage is exactly what is required of all of us. Time for the ...

... the talk to be matched by action.

We deny this monster cash-flow for even a week or two and it will either listen or perish.

I am more than willing to pay taxes. I am more than willing to pay even more taxes than I pay and have paid every year for the past 40 years.

So, what I am not proposing is reckless abandonment of support for social and physical infrastructure.

What I am saying is that the vast majority of us are receiving very little, if any, return on our investment in our government and in that societal infrastructure.

And, we are then confronted by the tiny fraction of our population that not only takes the money and runs -- but they also do not pay their justly proportional tax contribution and worse, they are the triple net beneficiaries of the tax revenue the vast majority of us struggle to pay.

That's the issue.

I'm more than willing to pay, but I am not willing to be deceived, robbed, endangered, and indebted so a few war criminals and torturers can purchase expensive shoes and estates and eat cake while my fellow citizens drown in sewage.


Peace.

[hiley]

21. I am ready as well

have been for quite a while. More must join us, stand up to fascism.

[mod mom]

29. Have you googled REX 84?

When I am writing on DU, or surrounded by my activist friends (such as the tremendous turnout in DC) I feel empowered by the movement. However, when I venture outside this microcosm of liberal thought, I find most people are relatively oblivious to what is happening in the world. I am not talking about uneducated citizens who are strugglling to make ends meet, but fellow well educated associates who think they are progressive but are so tied up will the daily monotony of everyday life that they fail to grasp the significance of what is occurring around them. This is the true dumbification of America!

Soccer, dance, gymnastic, blah, blah, blah. I have a friend whose background is in environmental science yet drives a Navigator. Appalling! She has Chemlawn pollute her lawn even though she has young children and a dog. WTF ! (excuse my language but the constant level of outrage leads one to use strong language) She is not a lone oddity, people! This is the true frustration of our movement that I wish I could find an answer to address.

We need to find a way to reach these people if we are serious in making a dent. We keep hearing that the tides will change with the '06 election, but WE DON"T CONTROL THE COUNTING OF THE VOTE! We hear that there will be no way for them to steal such huge numbers. WRONG! Just look at '00 and beyond (and perhaps before). We thought we could easily get numbers out on the street after the '04 theft. We couldn't even get the losing Dems to admit it, nor attempt to fix the issue because they are part of the problem!

Why aren't the backing the progressive ideas of Howard Dean? Hmmm, maybe because they don't want to disrupt the ruling elitism that governs this country. I agree with UL that the time for change is NOW (or even yesterday) but I am totally frustrated as to how to implement it on THE SCALE that needs to be implemented.

[Beam Me Up]

6. I see TWO recommendations. Can we have some more for this effort to

form A MORE PERFECT UNION?

[BeHereNow]

8. Oh yes...

Nominating NOW.
BHN

[fooj]

12. "They simply must be held accountable now."

Not a moment too soon, IMO. The future of our country depends on the fortitude of it's citizens.

It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government. - Thomas Paine


The light is on. The people are coming.

Peace.:patriot:

[understandinglife]

15. "It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government.

Yes, Thomas Paine 'got it.'

Time for all patriotic Americans to walk the talk and halt this unConstitutional and otherwise illegal, rogue fascist government. They are the lawless ones - from sending our Armed Forces into war without Congressional declaration to stealing elections. We not only 'have no election'; we have no Constitutional government in America.


Peace.

[fooj]

13. Nominate to 5!

Peace.

[DemReadingDU]

14. Thanks U.L.

[dzika]

16. kick and nominated

UL, that's one heck of a post!

[understandinglife]

17. Thanks -- Some parts of it will become chapter7 in the pamphlet ....

.... would you like to read the current draft version?

Peace.

[Time for change]

18. That sounds like quite a pamphlet you're putting together

I'm looking forward to reading it. Thank you for doing this.

[frictionlessO]

19. Again and again I learn so much at ULs hand.

Incredible post UL!

[understandinglife]

22. Thank you! We have a remarkable community at DU ....

Peace.

[frictionlessO]

20. too good not to kick again... n/t

[hiley]

23. agreed

;-)

[Independent_Liberal]

24. Kick!

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. Recommended. I don't know how the details would work, but the first

step, as you have explained, is clearly to educate the public in the truth about what the government is doing with their tax money and the history and legal background to provide a framework for fighting it.

Passivity and despair are no answer at all. We must find a POSITIVE way forward, one that uses the laws of the country and enforces accountability.

[Beam Me Up]

26. .

[hiley]

27. kick

[tinfoilinfor2005]

28. You do know that the average american won't read this

unless you condense it to ten words or less, right?