This lawsuit went to the Court of Appeals, and they also broke the law. It went to the Supreme Court, which, by law, MUST hear a constitutional issue, but they bailed, violating their oath of office like the cowards and traitors they are.
With what the government did (or didn't do) in New Orleans... forced removal of people and weapons, even in non-flood areas, and a host of other illegal activities... I'd say we are close to another revolution. Do we just roll over and play dead at what our leaders are doing to destroy lives, or do we make our voices
heard on this? Where is our line in the sand? Did our
forefathers die for nothing and will our kids inherit our weaknesses and loss of
liberty? Does God require us to obey unlawful and unconstitutional
government? Our time is running out...
America is ripe for a revolution against this lawlessness, for the constitution's sake, and for God's and truth's sake.
September 13, 2005
There is no greater threat to
Liberty in America, and consequently to Her strength and durability, than
the loss of the ability of the People to hold their servant government
accountable to the Principles of the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
accountability, the cry for Freedom of each individual is maximized and
the Rights of the governed are secured.
Liberty is directly
proportional to accountability. The more the People are able to hold
government accountable to these essential principles, the greater their
First Amendment provides a guarantee of the primary methods for exercising
accountability. Of crucial importance is the Petition clause, which
unlike the other clauses (which enable personal expression, belief and
association) brings the People and their government into a direct
confrontation, and results in a public declaration of individual
Liberty or governmental Tyranny.
the government for Redress of Grievances is nothing less than a peaceful
rebellion of citizens seeking to keep their government in its proper
place: as a servant of the People, created through a written Constitution
for their service and protection.
Petition is the period at the end of the sentence on Liberty. It is the
capstone Right, the ultimate peaceful deterrent to the abuse of
power in government, a protection against the theft of Freedom from the
Listen to the words of
Jefferson: "On every government on Earth is some trace of human weakness,
some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover,
wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve. Every government
degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the People alone. The People
themselves therefore are its only safe repository."
Petition Clause was positioned for the People's use against an imperfect
political process, a process that would favor the majority and those who
possess power and influence. The Petition Clause is there to protect the
individual from the whim of man and the whim of the majority. It offers
protection against abuses of government that infringe upon the Fundamental
Rights of both Individuals and the minority.
Petition is a necessary tool available to every individual, to remind and
instruct those in government that their control is always, and ultimately,
subject to the greater power and control of the Sovereign People that
created it, bound -- not by the whims of men, but the by essential
principles of Liberty. Petitions keep the government's ears open to its
master's voice and they can sharpen popular attention to what the
government is doing.
Founders knew that the unequal and unorganized citizens must have a
practical, constitutional vehicle by which they could secure protection
against those who would employ and enjoy political domination for their
advantage. Indeed, it is this single principle - the Natural Right of
popular sovereignty, as excised through the Right to Petition, that
distinguishes our form of government from any that has arisen during the
history of man.
between men and their governments have never been without anguish or
agony. In our system of governance, the Petition is the fine line between
peaceful and physical rebellion. Although Petitions may bring painful
revelations and result in difficulties, the Right to Petition is the final
check and balance that protects the People against the abuses of
government - and insures the continuation of our Founding Principles.
That said, a government that restricts or infringes upon the Right
to Petition commits a clear and grave error because it diminishes
accountability and the full enjoyment of Rights, Freedoms and Liberty.
To outright deny the Right to Petition is to invite physical
is the recent decision
by federal Judge Emmet Sullivan.
The decision is horrifying in its
We The People et al., v. United States, et
Sullivan, ruled that the government does not have to listen or respond
to the People's Petitions for Redress of Grievances.
Without the Right to a
response, the People do not have the Right to Petition. Popular
Sovereignty thus becomes a quaint anachronism.
In essence, a
federal District Court has declared its allegiance with Congress and the
Executive, which have repeatedly ignored our Petitions. The decision
effectively declares that our government is no longer accountable to We
the People and that our servant government is unrestricted and untouchable
in its pursuit of activities and agendas that are clearly prohibited by
Accountability contests between a free People
and its servant government should always be of a respectful nature and
require minimal encroachment or confrontation.
Judge Sullivan's decision is anything but respectful.
reasonable person would agree that the People's Right To Petition the
government for Redress of constitutional torts includes the Right to an
honest response. The Right to bring grievances before the government is of
no value if the People do not have the Right to a respectful
response. Indeed, this is the essence of the Right.
the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803,
"It cannot be presumed, that any clause in the Constitution is intended to
be without effect."
Seldom has the Judiciary been
so disrespectful of the Rights of People - probably not since the court
decision in Plessey v. Ferguson, which held that "Black" people
were "separate but equal" -- a patently absurd, political decision
that was eventually overturned by Brown v. Board of
one thing for the political branches to deny the Right to Petition, it is
an entirely different matter for a federal judge, standing as the
Judiciary, to officially sanction the denial.
was the case with Martin Luther King, Jr. in Alabama and Ghandi in India,
the enhancement of Liberty in any society must come from the efforts of
history of man's struggle for Freedom teaches us to become involved
citizens and to become Petitioners when the normal political process no
longer meets our needs or fails us entirely.
Petitioners are first class
citizens who, having the courage of their convictions, act as free and
thinking people. They rise and engage themselves as involved, responsible
citizens to make change where change seems necessary.
must a Free People do after Petitioning the Executive and Legislative
branches for stepping outside the boundaries drawn around their power by
the war making, taxing, property, privacy, money and due process
provisions of the Constitution and then witness their government turn a
blind eye and a deaf ear to the Petitions?
What must a Free People
do when, after petitioning the Judicial branch, a federal judge
effectively declares the Petition clause "CANCELLED" --- declaring that
this essential provision of the First Amendment "is without effect?"
the present facts and circumstances, an extraordinary commitment to
Freedom by the People is necessary. Personal activism must become a
priority in order to stem the rising tide of tyranny.
Accountability requires that the People hold their Principles
above not only the consequences that may result from the Petition itself,
but also the consequences that may result in attempting to hold government
lowest level of the federal Judiciary has now spoken and Judge Emmet
Sullivan has assured his noteworthy place in history. After
having profound questions of Constitutional Order and Natural Rights
placed before him, he has ruled that our Right to Petition was intended to
be without effect.
Working against despotism, and
needing to complete the historical and legal Record of our Petition
process for future generations, documenting our confrontation against
modern tyranny, we will now move through the federal appeals process,
starting with the U.S. Court of Appeals and, if necessary, the United
States Supreme Court. We cannot allow it to be said that we did not
complete our judicial remedies.
now clear that within the coming months, we will be living witnesses to
the further demise -- or resurrection -- of a nation where men once walked
free, endowed with the Blessings of Divine Providence.
personal actions in the future are offered to encourage People to become
involved as citizens and activists in the defense of Liberty when, as now,
Freedom has come under attack, and the political and judicial processes
designed to serve and protect us turn against us.
following is a statement by attorney Mark Lane
STATEMENT BY MARK
On December 15, 1791, the
most important statement in American history became effective law to guide
our nation. The Bill of Rights began with the First Amendment, and that
one sentence commitment to We the People is in large measure what makes us
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of
A number of
ordinary Americans sought to exercise their right to petition the
Government; they respectfully, imaginatively and persistently, over a
period of years asked the Government to cite the law or regulations that
constrained them to pay direct taxes on their labor or that authorized any
number of other government activities that were well outside the limits of
the Constitution. The Government refused to answer.
These folks then filed an
action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
asking the Court to issue a declaration that the Government was
constrained to respond to the numerous
Government responded to the Court that the right to petition did not
exist. Well, you could send a letter if you wished but the
Government was not required to respond or even read the petition. The
government cited two cases that were plainly not applicable. It could not
find an applicable case because, in fact, this case is a case of first
impression, meaning that no court has ever considered this issue
the courts are faced with serious consequences when they consider issues
of this magnitude. If the Government was required to answer questions
about the validity of income tax and if those answers were inadequate to
support the present income tax assumptions, the Government would be denied
access to funds to continue undeclared wars and other costly (and largely
unconstitutional) measures. The vast majority of funds the
government receives are generated from taxes upon labor with a small
portion being derived through taxes on corporations, and the corporate tax
obligations are shrinking each
A decision by the Court
in this case stating that circumstances had largely changed since 1791,
that the Government's obligations have increased to an extent that those
who drafted the First Amendment could not have expected and that,
therefore, we cannot any longer give full faith and credit to the promise
made to our people when the nation was founded, would have likely been a
more accurate assertion by the judiciary of its position. It would not
have been acceptable and it would have stated, in essence, that the First
Amendment, or a least a substantial portion of it, had been
But courts work
their magic by seeking to find some precedent when they make new law that
is unprecedented. Here, the Court relied upon the two inapplicable cases
that were cited by the
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
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.
Please make a donation to help fund the landmark
The Foundation currently has an outstanding balance of approximately
and the ongoing operations of the We The
for the services of attorney Mark Lane. In addition, the
a significant level of regular operating, technology
and program related costs.
It is only your
that keeps us moving forward.
Click Here to apply to become a Plaintiff and to access the
Information Center which includes scholarly research on the
Right to Petition and other lawsuit related materials, news and