The Constitutional Conspiracy:

Courts Colluding With White House to Avoid Accountability.

The proof is in. The federal courts have been found to be co-conspirators with the Executive Branch in a collusive scheme to avoid being held accountable to the Constitution by the People.

There can be no doubt. The federal judiciary is now being utilized as an weapon of oppression rather than for the ends of Justice for which it was designed.

Not only has the Judiciary abandoned its role as an independent arbiter of legal controversies involving injured citizens seeking remediation for Government wrongs, the Judiciary now refuses to even discuss the most basic, underlying Founding Principles upon which our Republic rests, i.e., the Rights of the People to Sovereignty and to hold Government accountable -- particularly its obligation to respond to Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts as provided by the First Amendment.

The most egregious result of these developments is that not only are the People effectively unable to secure Redress against Government entities that have harmed them, but the Judiciary has now abdicated its fundamental function under the Constitution by refusing to interpret the Constitution where questions of the Sovereignty of the People are implicated.

This is no small matter for the People. Without substantive recourse through the courts and no means by which to secure a declaration of these fundamental Principles from the Judiciary, the People are, indeed, left with very few means by which to peacefully secure their Rights against the majority or the tyrants.

Of course, the Government would much prefer that we quietly tolerate such despotic behavior, but it is now very clear that the People must begin to seriously assess their remaining options to restore Constitutional Order.

With the illusion of Justice now stripped away by the Judiciary herself, our nation rapidly approaches a crossroad: We will tolerate the continuing insolence of our servant government and quietly lose our remaining Freedoms, or we organize and do something to stop it.

The Congress has failed. The Executive has failed. And now, the Judiciary joined her sister branches in a conspiracy to prop up a cancerous and dangerous government.

The proof of the constitutional conspiracy can be found in two lawsuits that arose out of the Accountability Clause of the Constitution: 1) The landmark Right-to-Petition lawsuit, We The People v. United States; and 2) the current "6700" civil lawsuit, United States v. We The People.

At the heart of the constitutional question is the long-forgotten unalienable Right of the People, as articulated by the last ten words of the First Amendment, to hold their servant government directly accountable. According to the clear, and (still) un-refuted historical evidence, this important Right also embodies the Right of the People to peacefully secure Accountability by withholding their financial support should the Government fails to provide Redress.

The behavior of the courts as evidenced by the record can leave but one interpretation: The three branches of Government have colluded in a constitutional conspiracy to impede the exercise of the Right of the People to secure Constitutional Order.

This conspiracy against the Constitution cannot be tolerated any longer.


Admittedly, this article is longer than we prefer to post. There have been a number of significant recent developments as these cases have moved through the courts that we have not reported about until now. Some of these shocking developments are provided within context below along with the potent legal pleadings we have responded to them with. We trust you will find the escalating conspiracy against the Constitution to be most troubling and worthy of your investigation. Thank you for your continuing interest and support of our noble cause.

We The People v. United States

The first case, the landmark Right-to-Petition lawsuit, We The People v. United States, arose from the Accountability Clause as a result of the Peoples’ Petitions for Redress of injuries due to the Government's adoption of the Iraq Resolution in violation of the war powers clause of the Constitution, the Government’s adoption of the Federal Reserve Act in violation of the money clauses, the Government’s adoption of the USA Patriot Act in violation of the privacy clauses, and the Government’s operation and enforcement of a direct, un-apportioned tax on the People’s labor in violation of the tax clauses.

The People repeatedly Petitioned for Redress of these injuries in the most humble terms. The only remedy the People sought was for official, specific answers to the questions included in the Petitions, questions that challenged the constitutionality of the acts of the Government.

The People’s injuries increased; the Government refused to respond, ignoring the People’s Right of Redress.

The People decided to claim and exercise their Right to retain their money until their Grievances were Redressed, a Right guaranteed by the Accountability Clause of the First Amendment.

The People’s insulting injuries multiplied. The United States answered by retaliating against the People with liens, levies and seizures of property.

The People took the United States to court, claiming the retention of their money under the circumstances was protected by the Accountability Clause of the First Amendment.

During the entire history of the United States of America, no court had interpreted the meaning of the Accountability Clause – that is, no court had ever declared the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under the last ten words of the First Amendment, words that guarantee the fifth of the five Freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. The People’s case rested on a thoroughly researched review of the historical context and purpose of the Accountability Clause – i.e., the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Critically, there was nothing in American history or jurisprudence that contradicted the People’s interpretation of the meaning of the Accountability Clause.

The People’s unjust injuries grew. The Attorney General’s defensive argument was, “The Constitution says the People have the Right to Petition for Redress, but the Constitution does not say the Government has to listen or respond.” NOTE: The twenty-sixth Amendment guarantees everyone over the age of 18 the right to vote, but it does not say the Government has to count the votes. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1813, “there is no provision in the Constitution that was intended to be without effect.”

The People’s noxious injuries multiplied. Without responding at all to the People’s “Framers’ Intent” argument, and without offering its interpretation of the meaning of the Accountability clause, the federal courts dismissed We The People v. United States, saying that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in two earlier cases that the Government does not have to listen or respond to Petitions for Redress. The two cases cited by the courts were Smith v. Arkansas and Minnesota v. Knight. Both cases involved on-the-job, employment-related grievances from public employees who felt they did not have to comply with laws passed by their State legislatures dealing with grievance procedures for public employees. In Arkansas state highway workers wanted to submit their grievances to their state employer through a union, even though the state law prohibited unions. In Minnesota, state college professors wanted to submit their grievances directly to their employers, even though the state law required them to submit their grievances through their union. In those two cases, the Supreme Court ruled the public employees had to comply with their State laws.

Both the Smith and Knight cases were not on point. The facts and the legal arguments in those cases had nothing to do with the facts and the law in We The People v United States, where the Plaintiffs are citizens who, in their private capacities, are challenging the Government’s violations of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The People Petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case.

The People’s injuries intensified dramatically. Without further comment, the Supreme Court simply declared it did not want to hear the case (notwithstanding the fact that its primary job is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to hold the other two branches in their constitutional places). NOTE: SCOTUS did not refuse to hear the case because it believes the case is frivolous or without merit. Rather, it is safe to assume SCOTUS is highly politicized, and decided not to hear the case because the Court knew that if it was put into the position of having to interpret the Accountability Clause the ultimate power in our society would come to rest with the People (where the Founding Fathers intended it to be).

It gets much worse.

United States v. We The People

The second case, United States v. We The People arose from the Accountability Clause as a result of a Petition to the Government for Redress of injuries relating to the Government’s practice of forcing companies to withhold pay from the paychecks of its employees and to turn that money over to the IRS.

On March 15, 2003, in order to reconcile significant, well documented discrepancies between the statutory requirements of Internal Revenue Code and the Government’s institutionalized practice of forced withholding, WTP Petitioned the federal Executive and Legislative branches for Redress of alleged Grievances. This Petition relied on and directly quoted relevant statutes, regulations and court decisions. The objective of the Petition was to secure a legal review of the material by the Government, or (if Government chose not to respond to the Petition) by corporate attorneys and accountants that might receive the Petition materials and then, if possible, to effect a legal termination of withholding if expressly provided by law.

The Petition included forms for workers to submit to their company officials with instructions that the materials be submitted to a “rigorous review” by the company and its “tax professionals.”

To repeat, the Petitions were earmarked for review by tax professionals, with the stated goal being the voluntary termination of wage withholding for ordinary workers as and if provided for under U.S. tax law.

In addition, the Petition included a NOTICE to the Government requesting to be notified if there was anything in the Petition that was false or misleading, and informing the Government of the WTP’s intention to distribute the contents of the Petition to workers across the country, free of charge. All the material was contained in a blue folder, labeled “Legal Termination of Tax Withholding.”

The People’s constitutional injuries were compounded. The Government ignored the People and their Petition for Redress.

Receiving no response from the Government, WTP posted the entire contents of the blue folder on the Internet -- the entire Petition for Redress regarding withholding, allowing anyone to download and print the material for free. In addition, during April and May of 2003, WTP distributed, free of charge, 3,500 copies of the Petition at 37 public meetings around the country. In advance, WTP formally NOTICED the appropriate local federal DOJ and IRS officials of the date, time and location of each of the 37 meetings, requesting each time that someone from the Government attend the meeting and to advise WTP if anything it was doing or saying was false or misleading. At no time did the Government ever respond to any of the 37 NOTICES.

On March 31, 2007, complete with WTP’s 45’ x 25’ banner that reads “No Answers, NO Taxes,” one hundred and thirty People dressed in “V” for Vendetta masks and costumes stood in formation during a one hour silent vigil on Pennsylvania Avenue at an entrance to the front of the White House. This was the third in a series of “V” events by WTP. On November 5, 2006, a single “V” appeared at the security check points at the White House, the Attorney General’s office, and the Capitol to serve another copy of the outstanding Petitions for Redress. The entire episode was videotaped and appeared on YouTube and Google. On November 14, 2006, sixty “V”s stood in formation in a silent vigil at the White House with the “No Answers, NO Taxes” banner.

WTP sponsored the three “V” events to protest the Government’s refusal to respond to the withholding Petition for Redress and the other seven outstanding Petitions for Redress: 1) Iraq Resolution; 2) Federal Reserve; 3) USA Patriot Act; 4) Direct, Un-apportioned Tax on Labor; 5) Immigration; 6) North American Union; and 7) Gun Control.

On March 31, 2007, under the heading, “AGGITATING FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT,” the Washington Post published a photo of the “V” for Vendetta vigil and a short article about the constitutional issue involved. Click here to see the Washington Post photo and article. Click here for the video.

The People’s constitutionally noxious and deleterious injuries mounted. Several days after the Washington Post article appeared, the United States sued WTP in a civil action. The suit charged that by distributing the Petition for Redress on withholding WTP was “promoting an abusive tax shelter.” The Government asked the Court for an order permanently enjoining WTP from distributing copies of the Petition, requiring WTP to turn over to the Government the identities and contact information of all People who received a copy of the Blue Folder and requiring WTP to post a copy of the Court’s order on the front page of WTP’s website.

Arguing the distribution of copies of the Petition for Redress was protected by the First Amendment’s accountability clause as well as the free speech clause, WTP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Government responded with a motion for a Summary Judgment. WTP opposed summary judgment on the ground that the Court would be in violation of due process interests if it were to grant summary judgment due to the large number of facts material to the case that were in genuine dispute, requiring an evidentiary hearing.

The People’s baneful injuries at the hand of the courts multiplies further. The District Court awarded the Government a summary judgment -- i.e., it passed judgment without any public hearing or a trial, and without considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as required by Due Process of law.

WTP appealed to the Second Circuit, honing its constitutional argument and requesting a reversal. WTP’s appellate brief, the Government’s response and WTP’s reply are posted on the front page of our websites.

However, the People’s unjust injuries at the hands of the courts increased in the extreme. On February 4, 2008, WTP appeared before a panel of three Appellate judges for “oral argument.” On February 22, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its terse decision, affirming the District Court’s decision “for substantially the same reasons.”

On April 7, 2008, WTP filed a Petition for an En Banc Rehearing. This is a must read (short) legal document, for it demonstrates just how far the courts are willing to go to shield the Government from the accountability clause of the First Amendment. (links just below)

Among the charges leveled against the Court of Appeals in the Rehearing petition is that the initial judicial Panel violated several judicial canons of conduct when it orally berated appellant Schulz in public by subjecting him to a lengthy personal inquisition, demonstrating deep bias and prejudice against him. The Panel also sought (and succeeded) in publicly goading the largely unprepared U.S. Attorney into a commitment to have DOJ/IRS pursue criminal charges against Schulz. Beyond even this outrage, the WTP Defendants were denied Due Process on several other grounds by the Panel, not the least of which was the Court's refusal to allow any discussion of any of the potent Constitutional questions raised by WTP on appeal.

Read the Petition for En Banc Rehearing (.pdf)
Read the transcript of the Feb. 2008 oral arguments before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. (.pdf)

To those who may have had any remaining doubt, it is now clear: The courts have evolved into the political weapon of choice for quashing the dissident voices of those fighting the Government's growing attacks upon the Constitution.

In the words of one reviewer, WTP’s Petition for an En Banc hearing, “is temperate yet forceful and thoroughly argued.” If you read it you will have a clear understanding of the problem with the courts.

Endemic Constitutional abuse has left our Republic in a fragile state. Deprived of Justice, deprived of Redress and deprived of any established political instrument to secure such, the People are being slowly forced to seek out alternative means of resistance.

This Foundation believes the People possess the means to secure Constitutional Order by employing peaceful methods of protest to awaken a sleeping nation.

We The People will soon release additional details of its vision and plan to restore the Republic and secure Liberty. We pray you will join our cause for we know that while we must remain pro-active and non-violent, we can only achieve the reform we are entitled to if we, the People, achieve a mass-movement going forward.

Source

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-04-12.htm