The following is drawn directly from the "WeThePeople Foundation" website. I provide here only a few of the many salient paragraphs, so I encourage all concerned citizens to read the full Argument. (Citations omitted herein).
I truly believe that this most recent court filing by Bob Schulz of "WeThePeople Foundation" captures the soul of the ultimate grievance that the American people have with the Federal government. Decency and civility demands that the voice of the People not only be heard but also command Redress.
The time of great public awakening and discourse is approaching, and the Federal government, along with the banking elite pulling its strings, know it. We can expect a further acceleration of attempts to ecclipse and distract from the truth of the decades of violations by the Federal government of the U.S. Constitution on behalf of an agenda about which the American people have been kept in the dark like sheep being led to the slaughterhouse. When all is said and done, truly will the mainstream media be soundly indited by an outraged public, while the refusal by those complicit in the deliberate assault upon the Constitutional Republic of the United States to voluntarily submit to justice can only tear at the underlying fabric of civilization: good will among men.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Last September, in defense of the Constitution, Bob Schulz sued Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed. Chairman Ben Bernanke to prevent the flow of public funds to AIG until they identified where in the Constitution they found the authority, granted by the People, to give or lend public funds or credit to a private party for a decidedly and definitively private purpose.
Soon after, also in defense of the Constitution, Bob Schulz sued the leaders of the U.S. Executive and Legislative Branches and Fed. Chairman Ben Bernanke, to prevent the flow of public funds under the $700 Billion Bailout Bill (The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or "EESA") until they identified where in the Constitution they found the authority, granted by the People, to give or lend public funds or credit to a private party for a decidedly and definitively private purpose.
Despite the fact the bailout legislation passed into law expressly provides for Judicial consideration of injunctions brought on constitutional grounds, the federal District Court dismissed the case on the basis that Schulz lacked "standing" to bring the constitutional challenge and, therefore, the Court lacked "jurisdiction" to hear the case.
[In a filing of May 11th, 2009], Schulz perfected his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan. His Argument is repeated [in its entirety at the "WeThePeople Foundation" website]. For a full copy of his Brief, including the Facts and Procedural History, click here (PDF file).
In sum, Schulz argues that the decisions by the federal Courts, in cases (Petitions) seeking Redress of direct violations of the Constitution by officials in the two other branches of the federal Government, have put Schulz (and all other individuals) in the intolerable position of having to rely exclusively on the electoral process (i.e., the majority of people voting) for a guarantee of his Rights, not the Constitution or the Courts.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
ROBERT L. SCHULZ,
UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,
BEN S. BERNANKE, Chairman of the United States
Federal Reserve System, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, HENRY M.
PAULSON, JR., Secretary of the United States
Department of the Treasury, and the UNITED STATES
ROBERT L. SCHULZ,
UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States,
HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., Secretary of the Treasury;
UNITED STATES CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, HARRY
REID, Senate Majority Leader; UNITED STATES
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, BEN S. BERNANKE,
Chairman of the Board of the United States Federal
A. THE JUDICIARY'S APPLICATION OF ITS STANDING
DOCTRINE, COUPLED WITH THE JUDICIARY'S
APPLICATION OF ITS STARE DECISIS DOCTRINE,
IN A STRING OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO
ACTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT, ADDS UP TO AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INTOLERABLE DEPRIVATION
OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO A GOVERNMENT
REPUBLICAN IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE.
Having determined [that] the policy of the Judicial Branch of the Government was not to honor the First Amendment guarantee of the Creator-endowed Right of American citizens to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution by petitioning the Government for Redress of its violations, Schulz then began to petition his elected representatives in the Legislative and Executive Branches for Redress of numerous other violations of the Constitution. Between 1999 and 2004, Schulz served fact-based First Amendment Petitions for Redress of Grievances relating to those violations of the Constitution on his members of Congress and the President. Each Petition for Redress sought relief from a specific act of the Government alleged to be in violation of a specific restriction, prohibition or mandate of the Constitution (the Iraq Resolution and the War Powers clause, [the] Federal Reserve System and the Money clauses, the U.S.A. Patriot Act and its violation of the Privacy clauses, and [the] federal income tax system and its violation of the Tax clauses). However, the officials of each of the two non-judicial branches refused to respond to any of the Petitions for Redress – i.e., they refused, and continue to refuse to be held accountable. They refused, and continue to refuse to justify their behavior.
In 2004, Schulz returned to the Judicial Branch with an action for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration of his Rights and the obligations of the Government under the accountability clause of the First Amendment – the last ten words. Schulz asked the Court to answer two questions:
1) Is the Government obligated to respond to Petitions for Redress of constitutional violations?
2) If the Government does not respond, do the People have a Right to withdraw their support and resources until their Grievances are Redressed?
Citing two cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1979 and 1984, the Court grotesquely misapplied the judicial doctrine of stare decisis to arrive at its ruling that the Government is not obligated to respond to Petitions for Redress of violations of the Constitution and that, therefore, the People possess no Right to withdraw their support from the Government until their Grievances were redressed.
In effect, by its combined actions, the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches have adopted a self-serving, patently unjustifiable policy that if a citizen(s) directly suffers, or has evidence that a government official(s) has violated any of the restrictions, prohibitions or mandates of the Constitution (such as the "faithfully execute" clause of Article 2, or the war, tax and money clauses of Article 1) or any of the provisions of the Bill of Rights (such as the privacy clauses of the Fourth Amendment, or the accountability clause of the First Amendment, or the "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment), the citizen must rely exclusively on the electoral process for relief. That is, the Government, in its collective, has effectively held that citizens who have endured infringements of their Individual Rights must rely on one more than half the number of people voting in the polling places or one more than half the number of people voting in the halls of Congress to secure and enjoy those Rights.
This presents an interesting dilemma for a government allegedly constructed upon the Principle of the recognition of the sanctity of unalienable Individual Rights and the Rule of Law. It suggests that those running the three branches of the Republic have unilaterally chosen amongst themselves to transition America from a Constitutional Republic to a pure Democracy, freely ignoring the mandated procedure articulated in Article 5 of the Constitution. [emphasis and italics mine]
Should this Court affirm the District Court's decision to dismiss this case for lack of standing without reaching the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the Court will be affirming the arguably dangerous notion that if citizens object to the fact that their elected officials violate the Constitution or their Individual Rights, they have NO means to secure Justice or Liberty other than to register to vote at the next election.
Lacking any court ruling declaring the full contours of the meaning of the Petition Clause as it applies to ordinary natural citizens seeking Redress against their Government for constitutional torts, and taking into account the plain language of, and the Framers' intent behind, the words of the Petition Clause, as well as the 791 years of history documenting the evolution of Liberty from Runnymede to Philadelphia, and the complete absence of any case law in opposition to Plaintiff's interpretation of the Constitution, the ends of Justice and Liberty [and the presumption that those fundamental Rights exist as argued by Plaintiff] require that deference must be secured for Plaintiff who, by this Petition, has claimed and is exercising those Rights.
The individual's Right, through the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, to hold any branch of the government accountable to the Constitution, is the "capstone" Right, the period at the end of the sentence on Liberty's evolution, for "law without it, is law without justice."
Let the Government and other Defendants come forth to present evidence of their Constitutional and statutory authority to engage in these transactions. They have refused to do so.
The loss of U.S. Constitutional freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, constitutes irreparable injury. Plaintiff has a fundamental Right to constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order. Plaintiff has a fundamental Right to a government that does not violate the Constitution. Plaintiff has a fundamental Right to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution. Impairment of constitutional Rights can undoubtedly constitute irreparable injury.
Schulz has standing to bring suit – his constitutional, fundamental Right to Government officials who abide by the spirit and the letter of the Constitution has been violated. Clearly and demonstrably, Schulz has been injured. The Court has jurisdiction even before the conspiracy has resulted in economic or "tangible" injury, as has been and will be the situation with a continuation of Defendants' exercise of (alleged) "authority" under EESA.
Violations of U.S. Constitutional Rights are commonly considered irreparable injuries for the purposes of injunctions.
The Court has jurisdiction. Schulz's primary injury is due to Defendants' encroachment on the zone of interests protected by the Constitution.
The zone of constitutional interests being defended by Plaintiff Schulz includes the preservation, protection and enhancement of self-government, due process, popular sovereignty, accountability in government, the Right to Petition Government for a Redress of constitutional torts, and the Right to Constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order.
This nation's founding documents are comprised of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. They are inextricably intertwined.
The Declaration of Independence is the nation's "Charter," with its essential principles, including:
"[A]ll men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...."
Schulz's Rights to self-government, due process, popular sovereignty, accountability in government, the Right to Petition Government for a Redress of constitutional torts, and the Right to Constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order come from his Creator, not the state. He has them and is to enjoy them simply because he is alive.
The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America reads:
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The District Court's implied doctrine of non-resistance by Schulz (and the rest of "We the People") to arbitrary power and oppression by the political branches of the federal Government, apparently based on some manufactured notion of a lack of judicial jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies dealing with the Government's violation of the Constitution is absurd, slavish and destructive of [the] good and happiness of mankind.
[ ... ] Schulz's challenge is not directed at whether some provision of the Constitution or laws has been improperly applied. His claim is that the Defendants acted without any lawful authority whatsoever – that is, that the Constitution was ignored altogether.
Thus far, Defendants have utterly failed to cite their authority to give or lend public money to private corporations for decidedly and definitively private purposes. Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing must be denied.
Schulz has suffered an actual injury in fact. The AIG Agreement and EESA are invasions of legally-protected constitutional interests. Schulz's injuries, although shared with many others, are as particularized and concrete as any injury can ever be – that is, loss of his natural, individual, unalienable Right of sovereignty and self-government, and loss of his Grand Right to government based on the consent of the governed. Schulz's injuries are clearly traceable to the AIG Agreement and to EESA. Only a favorable decision by the Court will remedy his injuries.
To dismiss this case on a theory of lack of standing would be to effectively hold that, despite the fact that all those who comprise the class of humans referred to by the first three words of the Constitution may suffer equal injuries and deprivations of Liberty (See, "We the People"), the Judiciary itself is simply no longer available as a means of securing Redress to cure or restrain the unlawful acts of the (servant) government [which] they created.
Let us pray this has not become the fate of our nation.
Plaintiff respectfully requests an order reversing the District Court's decision, requiring Defendants to cite their authority to engage in the challenged acts, and granting Plaintiff's application for Preliminary injunctive relief. Thus far, Defendants have utterly failed to cite their authority to give or lend public money to privately-owned corporations for decidedly, and definitively, private purposes.
Dated: May 11, 2009
ROBERT L. SCHULZ, pro se
2458 Ridge Road
Queensbury, NY 12804