AFFIDAVIT REGARDING WTP’s PETITION FOR REDRESS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S VIOLATION OF THE TAX CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
I, Robert L. Schulz, declare under penalty of perjury:
- I am the Chairman of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. (“WTPF”) and the We The People Congress, Inc., (“WTPC”), both incorporated in 1997.
- I am the Chairman of We The People of New York, Inc., (“WTP-NY”) an affiliate of the WTP organization, incorporated in 2011.
- Fact: Exhibit 1 contains true copies of the Certificates of Incorporation of WTPF, WTPC AND WTP-NY showing they were incorporated to help Americans become better informed about their Rights, better informed about the actions of their Government and better informed about how to intelligently, rationally and professionally hold government accountable to the rule of law, including our Federal and State Constitutions and laws pursuant thereto with full reliance on the fundamental Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, a natural, un-alienable Right that is guaranteed by the last ten words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and also by every State Constitution.
- Fact: Exhibit 2 is a thorough Historical Record of the First Amendment Right to Petition.
- Fact: The First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an 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 grievances.” According to the historical record of the right to petition, the government is obligated to provide a meaningful response to the People’s proper Petitions for Redress of its violations of the United States Constitution.
- Fact: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ….”
- Fact: Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
- Fact: Exhibit 3 is a true copy of a well-researched, scholarly report by IRS Special Agent and Criminal Investigator Joseph R. Banister titled “Investigating The Federal Income Tax, A Preliminary Report,” which was published in 1999 and which focused on three Allegations: i) Due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, filing of federal income returns and payment of federal income tax is voluntary, not mandatory, ii) The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the amendment which precipitated the federal income tax was never legally ratified, and iii) The U.S. Constitution finances its operations from the unconstitutional creation of fiat money, not with revenue from income taxes; the Report contains a Bibliography that lists 34 Books, 7 Articles, 1 Seminar, 11 Government Publications and 1 Miscellaneous item relied on by Mr. Banister; finally, the Report has an Appendix that includes the name, address and phone number of 14 organizations and a description of relative information available from those organizations. The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said research report by Banister, refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 4 is a true copy of Volume I: The Law That Never Was, by William Benson and M.L. Beckman, one of the Books listed in said Bibliography. The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said research report by Benson and Beckman, refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 5 is a true copy of Volume II: The Law That Never Was, by William Benson, one of the Books listed in said Bibliography. The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said research report by Benson, refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 6 is a true copy of WHY NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO FILE TAX RETURNS and what you can do about it, by William Conklin, one of the Books listed in said Bibliography. The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said research report by Conklin, refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 7 is a true copy of The Federal Mafia, How The Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes, by Irwin Schiff, one of the Books listed is said Bibliography. The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said research report by Schiff refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 8 is a true copy of Uncertainty of the Federal Income Tax Laws, by constitutional attorney Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., one of the Articles listed in said Bibliography. The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said research report by Becraft, refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 9 is a true copy of a) Joseph Banister’s February 8, 1999 letter transmitting his Report to his immediate supervisor at the IRS with a request that the IRS conduct a point by point answer/analysis of points set forth in the Report; b) a February 17, 1999 letter from the IRS telling Banister the IRS will not respond to his request and requesting Banister’s resignation; and c) Banister’s February 25, 1999 letter of resignation sent to IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti in which Banister states he no longer believes the IRS “scrupulously observes taxpayer rights.” The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said correspondence by Banister, refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 10 is a true copy of a letter dated June 26, 1989 by U.S. Senator Inouye to a constituent in Hawaii, a tax consultant, stating in part, “Based on research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision [in the Internal Revenue Code] which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes.” The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said letter by Inouye, refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 11 is a true copy of WTP’s May 5, 1999 Petition for Redress of violations of the U.S. Constitution’s tax clauses, addressed to President Clinton, Speaker Hastert, Senate leader Lott and IRS Commissioner Rossotti, that included copies of said Report by Banister and Books by Benson and Conklin and that requested the recipients of the letter to identify those people with the best legal minds on the subject and have them attend a symposium being arranged by WTP for July 1-2, 1999, to meet with and respond to the issues presented by Joseph Banister, William Benson, Bill Conklin, Devvy Kidd and Lowell Becraft regarding the “direct tax on the people without state by state apportionment” and provide: (1) documentation that the 16th Amendment was properly and legally ratified; (2) a copy of any law that compels citizens to file and pay federal income and social security taxes; and (3) an official, clear, and unambiguous explanation as to how one can file a federal income tax return without waiving one’s 5th Amendment rights.” The Government has not publicly responded to said Petition by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 12 is a true copy of WTP’s June 4, 1999 follow-up Petition, addressed to President Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Lott and Speaker Hastert requesting their representatives attend WTP’s July 1-2, 1999 symposium at the National Press Club to argue against the “facts, conclusions and methodology of the research by Messrs. Banister, Benson, Conklin and others.” The Government has not publicly responded to said Petition by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 13 (Part 1) (Part 2) is a true copy of C-SPAN’s live, 3 ½ hour broadcast of the WTP sponsored symposium held at the National Press Club on July 2, 1999. The Government chose not to participate or otherwise argue in opposition to the allegations of Benson, Banister, Conklin, Becraft and Thurston Bell whose research resulted in three propositions: i) Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently proclaimed in 1913 that the 16h Amendment had been ratified by the States; ii) there is no law that compels most Americans to file and pay income taxes; iii) Americans waive their 5th Amendment Rights when they do file their income tax returns.
- Fact: Exhibit 14 is a true copy of WTP’s Oct 13, 1999 letter-petition to President Clinton, speaker Hastert and Senate leader Lott, informing them that “in light of the preponderance of the evidence in support of the three propositions and the absence of any arguments by the political branches of the government in opposition, and in light of the fact that the Judiciary has concluded that the question of the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment is a non-justiciable political question, it was decided that a Citizen’s Summit would be scheduled this fall to launch a plan aimed at ending what is now being referred to as the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on any people by their government. The Citizen’s Summit, a ‘congress of the people,’ will take place on Saturday, November 13, 1999 at the National Press Club in the District of Columbia. Five copies of a Remonstrance will be signed by all citizens in attendance and delivered to the leaders of each branch of the government…We would welcome any written statement from any official from the political branches of the government. Should you chose to reply to this request, we can assure you that every consideration will be given to a public reading of that statement at next month’s Summit.” The government did not publicly respond to WTP’s October 13, 1999 letter-petition by either acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 15 (Part 1) (Part 2) is a true copy of a recording of the Citizen’s Summit To End The Illegal Operations Of The IRS held at the National Press Club on November 13, 1999; scores of people from 16 States attended and signed a Remonstrance designed to end the illegal operations of the IRS after hearing from speakers including among others Bill Benson, two former IRS agents from the Criminal Investigation Division who recently resigned because they believed the IRS was enforcing the Internal Revenue Code as though payment of the income and social security taxes was compulsory when in fact payment of the taxes had been judged voluntary, and constitutional attorney Lowell Becraft who spoke about the significance of the rulings by the federal courts that obfuscate questions of the constitutionality of the 16th amendment and the rulings that evade entirely the claims of illegal and fraudulent ratification of the amendment in 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox; those in attendance signed five copies of a Remonstrance and agreed that the Remonstrance be placed on the Internet for others to sign, and that a letter should be sent to the President, the leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Chief Judge to inform them that at a specific time of day on April 13, 2000 a delegation consisting of two or more ordinary citizens from each of the fifty states would take part in the service upon them of the Remonstrance. The government chose not to attend and did not provide any public comments.
- Fact: Exhibit 16 is a true copy of WTP’s February 1, 2000 letter-petition addressed to President Clinton, Speaker Hastert and Senate Leader Lott, with a copy to Chief Judge William Rhenquist, informing the Government that “The failure of a representative government to justify its actions left the people with no alternative but to go forward with their critical analysis and further dissemination of information to the general public … arrangements [have been] made for the personal delivery of the Remonstrance to the leaders of each branch of the government by a delegation consisting of two or more ordinary, non-aligned citizens from each of the fifty states … at the White House, the Capitol and the U.S. Supreme Court building on April 13, 2000 … The Remonstrance is a strong statement of grievances regarding the illegality of the income and social security taxes. … A copy of the (unsigned) Remonstrance is also attached hereto. Please note that it is the full text of the Remonstrance that was signed by those in attendance at the Citizens’ Summit To End The Illegal Operation Of The IRS on November 13, 1999, and that it is displayed on the internet … available for electronic signature.” (emphasis added). The Government did not publicly responded to WTP’s February 1, 2000 letter-petition by either acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 17 is a true copy of WTP’s April 13, 2000 letter-petition to President Clinton, transmitting WTP’s Remonstrance/Petition for Redress, signed by nearly 10,000 American citizens; similar letters with its fully-signed attachment were also addressed to Senator Lott, Speaker Hastert and Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist; on April 13, 2000; while the remainder of the delegation of the People waited outside the letters were hand delivered by Joseph Banister and WTP’s Chairman Robert Schulz to Jason Furman of the office of the President in the White House, Keith Hennessey of the office of the Senate Majority Leader in the Capitol, Dr. William Koetzle of the office of the Speaker in the Capitol and to the clerk’s office for the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court; the Remonstrance includes dozens of grievances and material facts, and ends with a plea for the Government to “take immediate and forthright action that will result in the redress of these grievances. We call for a thorough overhaul of the IRS and its administrative procedures to make its operations and agents completely accountable to the Constitution and constitutional law”; WTP Director Burr Deitz accompanied Joseph Banister and Robert Schulz and was permitted to film the service of the Remonstrance on Furman, Hennessey and Koetzle. The Government did not respond to said letter-petition.
- Fact: Exhibit 18 is a true copy of a recording of the service on the leaders of all three branches of the U.S. Government of WTP’s Petition for Redress – i.e., the “Remonstrance,” on April 13, 2000. The Government did not publicly respond to the People’s April 13, 2000 Petition for Redress of the violations of the tax clauses of the Constitution, either by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 19 is a true copy of WTP’s June 19, 2000 plea for a response from the Government to the People’s Petition for Redress and its invitation to the Government to attend a Conference on the Legality of the Income Tax, to be held at the National Press Club on June 29, 2000, as published in the Washington Times under the heading, “Dear Government, Why Won’t You Answer?” The Government did not publicly respond to the People’s June 19, 2000 Petition for Redress of the violations of the tax clauses of the Constitution by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 20 (Part 1) (Part 2) is a true copy of a recording of WTP’s conference on the Legality of the Income Tax that was held at the National Press Club on June 29, 2000. The government did not attend the June 29, 2000 conference.
- Fact: Exhibit 21 is a true copy of WTP’s July 2, 2000 plea for a response from the Government to the People’s Petition for Redress, as published in USA TODAY and the Washington Times. The government did not publicly respond to the July 2, 2000 petition by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 22 is a true copy of WTP’s February 14, 2001 invitation to IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti to attend a conference on February 17, 2001 at the Crystal City Hilton Hotel in Arlington, Virginia, where WTP would be discussing “PROJECT TOTO,” a plan to “end the illegal operations of the income tax system”; the invitation asked Commissioner Rossotti to “send expert representatives to the meeting to tell us about the IRS’s position, or to tell us when the IRS will send representatives to a conference to discuss and debate and respond to the allegations … which have been presented to you by Joseph Banister, William Benson, William Conklin and by this organization during the last two years … to explain where they are in error and to show them the law that requires most Americans to file a tax return and to have the income tax withheld from the money they earn.” The IRS did not publicly respond to the Feb. 14, 2001 petition by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 23 is a true copy of WTP’s February 16, 2001 petition to the Government to attend Project TOTO and provide a response to the People’s Petition for Redress of violations of the tax clauses of the Constitution, as Published in USA TODAY and the Washington Times. The government did not publicly respond to the Feb. 16, 2001 by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 24 (Part 1) (Part 2) is a true copy of a recording of WTP’s conference on PROJECT TOTO held at the Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, Virginia on February 17, 2001. The government did not attend said Feb. 17, 2001 conference.
- Fact: Exhibit 25 is a true copy of WTP’s March 2, 2001 plea for a response from the Government to WTP’s Petition for Redress of violations of the Constitution’s tax clauses, as published in USA TODAY and the Washington Times. The government did not publicly respond to said March 2, 2001 petition by either acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 26 is a true copy of WTP’s March 19, 2001 invitation to IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti requesting that on April 9, 2001 he speak to the citizens who will gather outside the IRS headquarters building in Washington DC, and that he address the grievances which have been presented to him by WTP, Joseph Banister, William Benson, William Conklin and others “during the last two years”; following its recitation of those grievances the invitation went on to say, “More and more citizens now believe that it is precisely because of the absence of proper constitutional authority that Congress has not passed any law requiring most Americans to file and pay an income tax … Yet, a growing number of people are losing their homes, going to prison and otherwise being subjected to financial penalties and emotional stress for either falling behind on their payments or legitimately deciding that they do not have to pay … So far, the IRS has responded with increased threats … but with no attempts to discuss in a rational way the allegations about the laws and regulations. Obviously, the current situation should not continue. We need to get to the truth of the matter.” The IRS did not publicly respond to said March 19, 2001 petition by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- act: Exhibit 27 is a true copy of WTP’s March 23, 2001 petition, as published in USA TODAY and the Washington Times, for a response to our Petition for Redress. The government did not respond to the March 23, 2001 petition by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 28 is a true copy of a recording of the events that took place on April 9, 2001 at the entrance to the IRS headquarters in Washington D.C. No one from the government participated in said April 9, 2001 event.
- Fact: Exhibit 29 is a true copy of WTP’s April 2, 2001 letter-petition that was faxed that morning to Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that began with the notice that a NY Times reporter, David Cay Johnston had called Schulz to inform him that the Committee would be holding a hearing on April 5, 2001 on the subject “Taxpayer Beware: Schemes, Scams and Fraud,” that the Committee intended to have blown up copies of [WTPF’s USA TODAY] petitions on display and that this was an important opportunity for those of us in the tax honesty movement to tell our side of the story; WTP’s April 2, 2001 letter to Senator Grassley went on to “formally request witness status for [Schulz] and each of the individuals featured in the ads we published on February 16, 2001, March 2, 2001 and March 23, 2001” and stated, “There is strong evidence the IRS is disobeying the law and forcing citizens to pay taxes they are not, by law, required to pay. Unless we are granted witness status, Thursday’s hearing will lack one thing: THE TRUTH.” Senator Grassley responded to Schulz that afternoon by facsimile saying, “The witness list is closed.”
- Fact: Exhibit 30 is part of an article published April 4, 2001 in the St. Petersburg Times; the article quotes Senator Grassley saying, “The purpose of Thursday’s hearing is to inform taxpayers of illegal efforts to avoid paying taxes … After reviewing material issued by We The People, the Committee decided that hearing the group’s testimony would be detrimental to achieving this important goal.” (emphasis added).
- Fact: Exhibit 31 is a true copy of WTP’s April 5, 2001 Statement Submitted To Senate Finance Committee which reads in part, “Government officials have refused to respond to our repeated requests to discuss allegations and answer questions raised by tax researchers … We are concerned the hearings may turn into an attempt to label and portray the tax researchers and employers as people who are running scams, cons and deceptions, when, on the contrary, the evidence is convincing that the shoe is on the other foot … We suggest the Committee should hear from some of the individuals … pictured in our full-page messages published in the USA TODAY and in the Washington Times, including tax researchers, former IRS agents and employers who have stopped withholding” (emphasis added); the Statement went on to suggest dozens of specific questions that ought to be asked of the IRS Commissioner during the hearing and included Exhibits. The Senate Committee failed to include in the record of the hearing any of the Exhibits that accompanied WTP’s Statement Submitted To Senate Finance Committee.
- Fact: Exhibit 32 is a true copy of the June 11, 2001 letter by WTP Chairman Schulz to President Bush, speaker Hastert, Senate leader Lott and IRS Commissioner Rossotti informing them that Schulz “will begin a fast [on July 1, 2001] which will continue until I die or until IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti delivers to me a list of the government’s experts who will meet on September 18, 2001, in a public forum … with tax law researchers from the tax honesty movement, to argue against the conclusions of those researchers … This comes as a result of the government’s continued evasion of opportunities … provided to the government over the past two years to discuss the allegations of fraud and illegal operations of the income tax system ... On April 11, 2001, USA TODAY informed the Foundation of its decision to stop publishing the Foundation’s full-page educational messages about the issues, and the government’s failure to address them … Obviously, the current situation must not continue … The questions is: What can a free People do when faced with a government that has apparently stepped outside the boundary drawn around its taxing power by the Constitution and by its own laws, and refuses to justify its behavior, evades all requests by citizens to answer legitimate questions, and uses a heavy handed, steel-fisted approach to enforcing the income tax – and when the dominant media will not allow the people to purchase space to tell their story? … I pray that my stand in defense of the Constitution and the rule of law … will help to educate citizens about the apparent discrepancy between the government’s behavior in enforcing the federal tax laws and the legality of those laws, the government’s recalcitrance and refusal to reconcile the discrepancy, and the importance of keeping the government within the boundaries the people have drawn around its power. My act should not be seen as one of frustration or despair, but as a measure of my devotion to our sacred constitutional principles for which so many others have laid down their lives … Everything else has been tried. The People have done everything right and they have been so very respectful in their attempts to obtain answers from their government … What must a free people do when faced with a government that has apparently stepped outside the boundary the people have drawn around its taxing power, will not justify its behavior, treats all people who raise questions about it legal authority as ‘tax cheats,’ (even if those people, such as myself and Mr. Banister do pay their taxes in full and on time), enforces the Internal Revenue Code at gunpoint and throws citizens in jail, seizes homes, cars and bank accounts, even though those citizens have tried repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to get answers from the IRS and their Congressmen regarding the legality of the tax … It’s up to you Mr. President. I will either die in defense of our Constitution, which I have sworn to defend against foreign and domestic enemies, or there will be a public conference on September 18th to discuss and debate the questions raised by tax researchers from what has become known as the ‘tax honesty movement.’” (emphasis added). The Government did not respond until July 18, 2001.
- Fact: Exhibit 33 is a true copy of the minutes of WTP’s Emergency June 28, 2001 Board of Directors meeting called to “discuss Bob Schulz’s unilateral decision to undertake a fast-to-the-death protest against the government’s refusal to answer questions concerning the federal income tax”; following a full discussion, the Board mostly agreed with the essence of the statement, “Whereas the government’s behavior has been intolerable and reprehensible, it is hereby resolved that we cannot condone the act of fasting unto death. We do, however, support Bob Schulz in his personal decision to take this course of action.”
- Fact: Exhibit 34 is a true copy of the July 1, 2001 letter by WTP’s Chairman Schulz to President Bush, speaker Hastert, Senate leader Daschle and IRS Commissioner Rossotti, delivered at the start of Schulz’s hunger fast, saying in part, “This letter is a follow-up to my letter to you, dated June 11, 2001 … The purpose of the earlier letter was to respectfully request your assistance in getting the federal government to agree to have its experts meet on September 18, 2001, in a public forum in Washington DC, with tax law researchers from the Tax Honesty Movement, to address certain grievances … I summarized the actions this Foundation and others have respectfully and professionally undertaken during the last three years to petition the government to answer the researcher’s allegations of fraud and the illegal operations of the federal income tax system. I reported that, thus far, and regrettably, the government has not answered the petition, evading the researchers and the issues. Finally, in the earlier letter I informed you that as of today, July 1st, I would begin a fast that would continue until I die or until the government agrees to have its experts attend the September 18th meeting. As of today, I have not received any response from the government to my letter of June 11, 2001. Therefore, I have begun the fast. Hoping to hear from you soon, I remain….” (emphasis added). The Government did not respond until July 18, 2001.
- Fact: Exhibit 35 is a true copy of WTP’s July 9, 2001 letter-petition to President Bush, in support of WTP’s Petition for Redress, detailing the grievances and material facts and saying, “these are matters of utmost importance, and cannot be long tolerated if Americans are to remain free. With that in mind we respectfully request that you identify your most knowledgeable people on the issues and have them participate in the conference now scheduled for September 18, 2001, to show us the law that gives the legal authority to force employers to withhold the tax from the paychecks of their employees and to force American citizens to keep records and sign and file tax returns and pay an income tax.” The Government did not respond to said July 9, 2001 petition.
- Fact: Exhibit 36 is a true copy of remarks by Rep. Ron Paul at a July 17, 2001 press conference arranged by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett and held on the House Triangle in response to WTP’s Petition for Redress. Rep. Ron Paul stated in part, “I support Mr. Schulz’s right to petition his government, to have his petition heard and taken seriously. The IRS should meet with him, and respond formally to his questions. His first Amendment petition should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS officials. Indeed, the right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.”
- Fact: Exhibit 37 is a true copy of a July 18, 2001 letter to WTP’s Chairman Schulz from Lawrence Lindsey, Director of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors located at the White House, stating in part, “I have taken the liberty of sharing your letters [of June 11 and July 1] with the Internal Revenue Service for their review. A more substantive response will be forthcoming from this office once the IRS has had the opportunity to assess your grievances ... I would be remiss if I did not suggest that you end your fast.” IRS Commissioner Rossotti had in fact been copied on and had received a copy of both the June 11, 2001 and July 1, 2001 letters as well as most if not all of the petitions served on the Government by WTP during the previous two years and thus had had an opportunity to assess and respond to the grievances before July 18, 2001.
- Fact: Exhibit 38 is a true copy of a July 20, 2001 Agreement between the Department of Justice and U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett which was executed two days after the July 18, 2001 letter from Lawrence Lindsey, agreeing to conduct a “congressional briefing like hearing” on Capitol Hill with the We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education and the Department of Justice, to be hosted by Congressman Bartlett; the Agreement was signed by DOJ’s Daniel J. Bryant at the conclusion of a meeting in his D.C. office with Bartlett and Schulz, where both Bartlett and Bryant were accompanied by note takers; the meeting followed two phone calls to Rep. Bartlett that were initiated after the July 18 letter from Lawrence Lindsey was delivered; the first call was from IRS Commissioner Rossotti who told Rep. Bartlett the IRS would attend a public meeting with WTP’s representatives to discuss the allegations; the second call was from Daniel Bryant who told Bartlett that DOJ would also attend but he insisted that rather than have history show the Government was responding to a citizen’s petition for redress of grievances he wanted history to show the Government was merely responding to a letter from a Congressman; Bryant then asked Bartlett to write such a letter; immediately following the call from Bryant, with Schulz at the table in his office, Bartlett penned a letter to Bryant; Bartlett and Schulz then proceeded to meet with Bryant at DOJ’s headquarters where they negotiated details of a congressional briefing-like hearing on WTP’s Petition for Redress to be held on September 25–26, 2001; Bryant then added a note to Bartlett’s letter, agreeing to do all he could to make the Hearing happen.
- Fact: Exhibit 39 is a true copy of an article, Free Speech v. IRS: Taxpayer Kicks Down Previously Locked Doors, as published in the journal Tax Notes on July 23, 2001, reporting, “A taxpaying citizen with questions about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code last week got two government agencies – which had previously rebuffed him - to apparently agree to participate in a public forum this fall … Schulz appeared confident that neither the IRS nor Justice would back out of the tentative conference … Bartlett, one of the 17 Republicans on the Liberty Committee, an unofficial group of lawmakers who watch out for constitutional issues, said earlier in the week that he decided to champion Schulz’s constitutional right to be heard … ‘I am very concerned that either wittingly or unwittingly our agencies of the government are currently violating the Constitution,’ Bartlett said pointing to the First Amendment protections allowing citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ‘They have petitioned the government and they have had no response. They deserve an answer to their questions.’ Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, chair of the Liberty Committee, stood behind Schulz’s efforts as well … ‘I support Mr. Schulz’s right to petition his government to have his petition heard and be taken seriously,’ he said. ‘His First Amendment petition should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS officials’.… According to Bartlett, the First Amendment problems illustrated by Schulz’s situation reach far beyond the validity of the income tax and should be a priority for all freedom-loving Americans.”
- Fact: Exhibit 40 is a true copy of WTP’s July 30, 2001 press release regarding the July 20, 2001 Agreement between Congressman Bartlett and DOJ, stating in part, “at a meeting on July 20, 2001 a top official at the Department of Justice and Congressman Bartlett committed, in writing, to arrange a recorded, public meeting at which representatives of the Justice Department will officially answer to charges challenging the legal jurisdiction of the IRS and the enforcement of U.S. Income tax laws against U.S. citizens. Separately, Congressman Bartlett said that appropriate representatives of the IRS will participate ... These actions are in response to a proper petition for redress of grievances … During the meeting, Bryant agreed with Bartlett and Schulz that under the 1st amendment to the Constitution the American people are entitled to answers. Since for many years many individuals and groups have asked for answers to similar or identical questions it was agreed in the meeting that this hearing is in the nation’s interest … Dan Bryant agreed to Rep. Bartlett’s request that the ‘congressional briefing-like hearing’ be recorded on audio and visual equipment for public distribution and offered to C-SPAN for coverage. Bryant’s offer to provide an official transcript of the two-day meeting was also agreed upon … If our income tax system is publicly confirmed to be without force of law upon the People, and is truly as ‘voluntary’ as the IRS so often advertises, it is highly likely that the government may move quickly to implement a replacement tax such as a national sales tax.” (emphasis added).
- Fact: Exhibit 41 is a true copy of a July 30, 2001 email from Rep. Bartlett’s office to Dan Bryant at DOJ and Floyd Williams at IRS transmitting WTP’s July 30 press release and stating in part, “Congressman Bartlett personally affirmed that this release is an accurate reflection of the July 20 meeting. Congressman Bartlett discussed the request for a public forum at which appropriate IRS representatives would participate in an earlier meeting with Floyd Williams of IRS and Karen Wilson of DOJ and subsequently in a phone conversation with IRS Commissioner Rossotti.”
- Fact: Exhibit 42 is a true copy of IRS’s Floyd Williams’ July 30, 2001 email to Bartlett saying, “Treasury/IRS has not agreed (either verbally or in writing) to participate in a public forum with Bob Schulz.” Williams’ July 30, 2001 email to Bartlett contradicts Rep. Bartlett’s sworn testimony - See paragraph below.
- Fact: Exhibit 43 is a true copy of the August 13, 2001 article published in Tax Notes, Backroom Deals, Fleeting Promises Put Income Tax Hearing In Jeopardy” that reads in part, “The future of tentative hearing on the legality of the income tax remained … mired in the tangled web of Washington doublespeak … The effort [to get the government to publicly answer] is supposed to culminate in a two-day congressional-type hearing on September 25 and 26 involving Schulz, a team of WTP tax attorneys and researchers, and officials from the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service. The hearing is to be headed by Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, R-Md., who helped orchestrate the deal … While Bartlett was able to secure a pseudo-commitment (see fax on page 878) from Dan Bryant, Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ Legal affairs department, who pledged to do everything within his power to ensure DOJ would send the appropriate representative to the proposed meeting, any IRS involvement is based solely on an oral agreement reportedly struck between Bartlett and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti during private talks.”
- Fact: Exhibit 44 is a true copy of an August 29, 2001 email to WTPF from the office of Rep. Bartlett saying, “Congressman Bartlett is continuing to actively pursue and secure participation by representatives of both the Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service at the September 25-26 forum … He expects Dan Bryant, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice, and IRS Chairman Charles Rossotti to fulfill their personal commitments to him.” (emphasis added).
- Fact: Exhibit 45 is a true copy of WTP’s September 12, 2001 request to postpone the September 25-26 hearing due to the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.
- Fact: Exhibit 46 is a true copy of an October 12, 2001 letter to WTPF from Rep. Bartlett rescheduling the hearing to February 27 and 28, 2002 and saying in part, “The Constitution that I love and have sworn to uphold and defend grants citizens the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. It is my duty as an elected representative to the United States Congress to ensure that once a petition, such as yours, is properly framed, our government timely and properly responds … the government of a free people should not tax the labor of its citizens, and it is imperative that the federal tax system not be repugnant (contrary) to the Constitution and its laws. Most of Congress now agrees … over the past three years, several bills have been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate that would abolish the federal income tax. Two hundred eighty-two (282) Representatives and Senators supported these measures ... We have rescheduled the forum (symposium) for February 27 and 28 in the Science and Technology Committee Hearing Room in the Rayburn House Office Building beginning at 9:00 a.m. each day. A letter of support and confirmation signed by myself and other members of Congress has been drafted, circulated, and will be sent to officials at the Department of Justice, Treasury and the IRS, informing them of the dates and times and requiring their attendance. I will personally chair the event and have invited other members of Congress to attend and sit on the panel.” (emphasis added).
- Fact: Exhibit 47 is a true copy of an article published in the January 7, 2002 edition of Tax Notes that reads in part, “While the IRS has yet to officially confirm or deny its participation in the hearing, a Bartlett press aide acknowledged receiving a letter from Justice around Thanksgiving stating plainly that the DOJ would not attend [the hearing].”
- Fact: On January 17, 2002, Rep. Bartlett notified WTPF that due to the decisions by IRS and DOJ not to attend the hearing he had cancelled the February 27-28, 2002 hearing, saying, “This is the alternative. I do not believe the IRS and DOJ will refuse to answer my questions. Please send the questions that you and your team developed to my Washington D.C. office. I will refer them to the appropriate individuals at the IRS and DOJ to respond. Since I know that there are thousands of people across this Nation who want answers to similar questions, I will post the questions and answers on my congressional website.”
- Fact: On January 22, 2002, WTP notified Rep. Bartlett that WTP would proceed with the “Citizens’ Truth-in-Taxation Hearing” on February 27 and 28, 2002 but at the Washington Marriott where WTP would have private attorneys, CPAs, former IRS Agents, a former IRS counsel, tax researchers and other appropriate experts answer the questions the Government was refusing to answer, documenting the factual evidence in support of their answers; the questions asked and answered at the Hearing would then be delivered to Rep. Bartlett for referral to the IRS and DOJ.
- Fact: Exhibit 48 is a true copy of WTP’s message published in the New York Times on February 10, 2002, under the heading, “IRS & Department of Justice: Why Won’t You Answer Our Questions?” confirming the date and purpose of the upcoming February 27 and 28, 2002 Citizens’ Truth-in-Taxation Hearing and inviting IRS and DOJ to participate. The Government did not respond to WTP’s February 10, 2002 invitation as published in the New York Times.
- Fact: Exhibit 49 is a true copy of a 3/16/2002 letter from Schulz to Rep. Bartlett with the questions prepared by three tax attorneys hired by WTP following the July 20, 2001 Agreement between Congressman Bartlett, the DOJ and the IRS; the questions were to be asked of witnesses at the hearing originally scheduled to take place on Capitol Hill in September of 2001 but were asked and answered under oath by expert witnesses at the February 27-28, 2002 Citizens’ Truth-in-Taxation Hearing at the Washington Marriott.
- Fact: The following are the nine witnesses who answered said questions, under oath, at said “Citizens’ Truth-in-Taxation Hearing”: Joseph Banister, Ex. IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent, Certified Public Accountant and author of “Investigating The Federal Income Tax, A Preliminary Report”; Lowell Becraft, Constitutional Attorney; William Benson, Ex. IL. Dept. Revenue Crime Investigator and author of “The Law That Never Was”; Paul Chappell, Attorney and Retired IRS Office of Counsel; Sherry Peel Jackson, Former IRS Agent and Certified Public Accountant; Victoria Osborne, Forensic Accountant; Irwin Schiff, Expert Witness on the IRS and author of “The Federal Mafia” and “The Great Income Tax Hoax”; Noel Spaid, Constitutional and Tax Attorney; John Turner, Ex. IRS Agent and Certified Public Accountant.
- Fact: Exhibit 50 (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4) is a true copy of a recording, including both a typewritten transcript and a video of the questions being asked and answered under oath by said witnesses at the “Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing” held at the Washington Marriott on February 27-28, 2002.
- Fact: Exhibit 51 are Statements of Fact that were derived, word for word, from the testimony of said credentialed tax professionals at said Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing; the tax professionals responded to all but the last 78 questions that were spread over four of the labelled lines of inquiry on the master list of 538 questions that were spread over 18 labelled lines of inquiry before time ran out; the Statements of Facts presented under POINT I through POINT XIV in the attached Statements of Fact derive word-for-word from the sworn testimony given in response to the exact questions from the master list of questions that were spread over 14 of the labelled lines of inquiry as noted.
- Fact: Exhibit 52 is a true copy of WTP’s March 16, 2002 letter to Rep. Bartlett, transmitting the master list of 528 questions developed by WTP’s team of attorneys following the July 20, 2001 Agreement between Bartlett, DOJ and the IRS, “to be answered by the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service.”
- Fact: Exhibit 53 is a true copy of an April 10, 2002 letter from DOJ’s Dan Bryant to Rep. Bartlett saying in part, “We are responding to your letter of January 30, 2002, transmitting questions submitted to you by Robert Schultz [sic] on behalf of We The People Foundation … The Department’s Tax Division will continue to bring appropriate legal action to uniformly enforce the tax laws Congress enacts … we respectfully decline to answer the individual questions posed by WTP.” (emphasis added).
- Fact: Exhibit 54 contains true copies of WTP’s April 8, 2002 and April 10, 2002 letters to the Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee and House IRS Oversight Subcommittee, President George W. Bush and Lawrence Lindsay, transmitting to each recipient copies of the transcript of WTP’s hearing held at the Washington Marriott on February 22-23, 2002 and a complete video record of the Hearing on a set of CD-ROMs, documenting the questions intended for the IRS and DOJ but answered only by private tax researchers, attorneys and accountants, former IRS agents and a former IRS counsel, which letter says in part, “The first Amendment REQUIRES that our Government answer these questions … These are specific legal questions regarding the laws and regulations of our nation as they are currently written and enforced … These are not frivolous questions. These are questions that MUST BE ANSWERED.” The Government did not respond to WTP’s April 8th and April 10th petitions by acknowledging receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 55 is a true copy of one of the 3,300 letters received by the members of Congress from one or more of their constituents during April of 2002; with each letter was a “full audio/video/text/transcript record of the [February 27-28, 2002 Hearing]”; each constituent requested “a full congressional hearing, requiring IRS and DOJ to answer the questions and address the evidence.” No member of Congress answered any of the questions asked at the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing or addressed any of the Statements of Fact that emerged from the Hearing.
- Fact: Exhibit 56 is a true copy of a recording of that segment of a White House Press Briefing during which the President’s Press Secretary Ari Fleisher was asked if the President was going to direct the IRS and DOJ to respond to WTP’s Petition for Redress, to which Fleisher simply responded “That’s between the People involved.” (See 36:29)
- Fact: Exhibit 57 is a true copy of WTP’s November 8, 2002 Memorandum addressed to members of Congress and President George Bush that transmitted to each recipient a CD-ROM containing four Petitions for Redress, signed by approximately 91,000 citizens of the United States that “address issues and ask questions” related to: a) the direct, un-apportioned TAX ON LABOR in relation to the tax clauses of the Constitution; b) the USA PATRIOT ACT in relation to the privacy clauses of the Constitution; c) the IRAQ RESOLUTION in relation to the war powers clauses of the Constitution; and d) the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM in relation to the enumerated powers and money clauses of the Constitution; the Memorandum respectfully requested that each recipient send a representative to meet on the National Mall on the afternoon of November 14, 2002 with people who, as participants in “Freedom Drive 2002” will have caravanned from the four corners of the country, and to either answer the People’s questions or let the People know when their questions would be answered. The government did not respond to WTP’s November 8, 2002 Memorandum.
- Fact: Exhibit 58 is a true copy of a recording of that part of Freedom Drive 2002 that took place on the National Mall on November 14, 2002. No-one from the Government responded or is known to have attended the Freedom Drive 2002 proceedings on the National Mall on November 14, 2002.
- Fact: Exhibit 59 is a true copy of an special insert in a weekly edition of American Free Press that detailed the people’s Petition for Redress of violations of the tax clauses of the Constitution and highlights WTP’s attempts to get the government to respond during the preceding 3 ½ years.
- Fact: Exhibit 60 is a CD and true copy of a 9/17/03 NY Times article by David Cay Johnston showing that after Johnston asked the IRS why they had not responded to WTP’s petition for redress IRS senior spokesman, Terry L. Lemons responded saying the agency “did not want to waste time and resources dealing with well-settled issues … the government is answering the petition” with “enforcement actions.”
- Fact: Exhibit 61 is a true copy of WTP’s May 10, 2004 invitations to President Bush and Senator Kerry, and to Treasury Secretary Snow and Attorney General Ashcroft to send representatives to a Foundation-sponsored symposium at the National Press Club on July 19, 2004. The government did not respond to said letter by acknowledging its receipt or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 62 is a true copy of a recording by C-SPAN of the WTP sponsored symposium at the National Press Club on July 19, 2004.
- Fact: Exhibit 63 is a true copy of a documentary titled, “America: Freedom to Fascism” by film producer and director Aaron Russo which was triggered by C-SPAN’s live broadcast of the WTP-sponsored event at the National Press Club on July 19, 2004; during the live broadcast, Russo called the National Press Club and spoke to Schulz saying he was very interested in what he was watching on C-SPAN and would be investigating the matter. The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said documentary by Russo.
- Fact: http://www.hearliberty.com/ is a link to recording of a live interview Russo had on March 17, 2006 with WLS AM 890, a Chicago radio station, upon the public release of “America: Freedom to Fascism.”
- Fact: Exhibit 64 is a true copy of a sworn affidavit by former Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, in which he testifies, inter alia, that by adding a certain section to the Tax Relief and Health Care Reform Act of 2006, Congress unconstitutionally transferred its power to make law to the Treasury Department by authorizing Treasury to declare WTP’s income tax related position “frivolous” and punish anyone who attempts to hold the Government accountable to the First Amendment’s Petition Clause by submitting a proper Petition for Redress of the Grievance and by withholding their federal taxes if the Government refuses to respond. Rep. Bartlett states in part:
- “Mr. Schulz and WTP, by their Petition for Redress were not advocating violations of the Internal Revenue Code but were intelligently, rationally and in good faith utilizing the First Amendment’s Petition (and Speech) Clause to obtain answers to legitimate questions regarding the operation and enforcement of the Code…
- “However, on or about December 22, 2006, Congress passed the voluminous Tax Relief and Health Care Reform Act of 2006, which in its Division A, Title IV, Section 407 authorized the Treasury Secretary to prescribe a list of “specified frivolous positions” and to impose a fine of $5,000 on any person who uses one of those specified frivolous positions in any proceeding before the Internal Revenue Service. (see Exhibit E for relevant portions of the Act, particularly pages 39-40)…
- “In March of 2007, the Treasury Secretary issued Treasury Notice 2007-30 which included a list of “specified frivolous positions” and declared that any person who relied on a “specified frivolous position” in any proceeding before the Internal Revenue Service would be fined $5,000. (see Exhibit F, particularly pages 2 and 6)…
- “By its Treasury Notice 2007-30, the Government has in effect responded to WTP’s Petition for Redress by summarily, and without explanation, documentary evidence or argument declared WTP’s questions to be “frivolous.” Number (9)(b) on Treasury’s list of specified frivolous positions is particularly noteworthy as it appears to remove the enforceability of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment; quoting:
- “Frivolous Positions. Positions that are the same or similar to the following are frivolous.
- (a) … a taxpayer has a constitutional right not to comply with the Federal tax laws for one of the following reasons:
- (b) A taxpayer may withhold payment of taxes or the filing of a tax return until the Service or other government entity responds to a First Amendment petition for redress of grievances…
- “With every Right there is a Remedy and any Right that is not enforceable is not a Right.”
- Fact: Exhibit 65 is a true copy of THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT THE IRS’S “TRUTH” ABOUT “FRIVOLOUS” TAX ARGUMENTS by Louisiana Tax Attorney and researcher Thomas Cryer. The Government has not provided the public with a comprehensive critique of said report by Cryer, refuting its facts or otherwise.
- Fact: Exhibit 66 is a true copy of the May 8, 2007 decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in We The People v United States, 485 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs in We The People raised two intertwined, completely interwoven questions as follows: 1) Is Government obligated to respond to the People’s Petitions for Redress of violations of the Constitution, and 2) If Government refuses to respond to those Petitions do the People have a Right to retain their money until the Government does respond? The Plaintiffs claimed Government was required to respond to a First Amendment Petitions for Redress of Government’s violations of the Constitution’s tax clauses. The Court admitted in its decision that the Plaintiffs were raising a straight First Amendment Petition Clause claim - namely, that they have a right to receive a government response to or official consideration of their petition. The First Amendment expresses the People’s policy. The Court relied on Minn. v Knight, 465 U.S. 271 and Smith v Arkansas, 441 U.S. 463 in deciding Government was not required to respond to Plaintiff’s Petition.
The following is a true, official Overview of the Minn. v Knight decision: The Minnesota legislature adopted the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), Minn. Stat. § 179.61 et seq. (1982), to establish orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees. The Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges operated the state's community college system. The Minnesota Community College Faculty Association (MCCFA) was designated the exclusive representative of the faculty of the state's community colleges. Several community college instructors filed suit, challenging the constitutionality of MCCFA's exclusive representation in both the "meet and negotiate" and "meet and confer" processes. The court held that PELRA violated no constitutional provision. The instructors had no right as members of the public to a government audience for their policy views. The state did not restrain their freedom to speak on any education-related issue or their freedom to associate. PELRA was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in ensuring that its public employers hear one, and only one, voice presenting the majority view of its professional employees on employment-related policy questions.
The following a true, official Overview of the Smith v Arkansas decision: The public employer refused to consider grievances unless employees submitted them directly to the designated employer representative. In the present case, two employees requested the union to process grievances and the union forwarded the employees' letters of complaint to the designated employer's representative with letters stating that the union represented the employees and desired to set up meetings. The employer's representative did not respond to the union's letters and the employees thereafter submitted their written complaints directly to the employer's representative and the union represented them at subsequent meetings. The union claimed that the public employer's grievance procedure violated the First Amendment because it denied the union the ability to submit effective grievances on behalf of the employees. The courts below agreed. On further review, the Court reversed, holding that although the First Amendment prohibited the public employer from barring union membership or representation, the public employer was entitled to ignore the union and only consider complaints submitted directly by its employees.
Unlike the Knight and Smith cases, the instant case Is Not about Government Policy and Government Policymakers. Unlike the Knight and Smith cases the instant case Is about the People’s Policy and Government’s violation of the People’s policy and the People’s right of enforcement of their Rights. In fact, the Knight and Smith cases were also inapplicable to the We The People v U.S. case. The decision in We The People v. U.S. if applied to the instant case will have effectively repealed the First Amendment’s Petition Clause. The People should never accept a Judicial Repeal of any provision of the U.S. Constitution. A decision by this Court finding Plaintiffs’ straight First Amendment Petition Clause claim that Government is obligated to respond to proper Petitions for Redress would then require the Court to determine the ultimate question regarding petitioners’ right of enforcement – that is, their right to retain their taxes until their grievances were addressed. An historical review of the First Amendment’s Petition Clause was before the We The People Court. On the other hand, an historical review of the Right to Petition was not before the Smith and Knight courts. However, the We The People Court applied the holdings in the Smith and Knight cases in ruling the Government was not obligated to respond to Plaintiffs’ straight First Amendment Petition Clause claim. Unlike the Plaintiffs and their Petitions for Redress in We The People –i.e., private citizens petitioning the United States for violating various provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the petitioners in Smith and Knight were public sector employees who were simply petitioning their State and local public employers for new policies and regulations relating to internal matters like grievance procedures. In addition, the Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006), declared some rights of public sector employees, especially union activity, and speech and petition regarding employment-related policy questions are limited so that the government agencies may perform their functions and because those employees often hold positions of trust in the society. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the Smith (1979) and Knight (1984) cases have rendered those two cases inapplicable to the We The People (2007) case. America’s Declaration of Independence shows definitely, emphatically and unquestionably that the early Americans not only refused to pay their taxes but turned their backs on their government, disbanding it, because the government refused to respond to their Petitions for Redress of Grievances. Thomas Paine, in Common Sense (January, 1776) declared: 1) the People had been “recklessly petitioning,” only to have their repeated petitions answered only with repeated injury; and 2) that a new manifesto was needed which laid out the futility of their petitioning approach. That manifesto turned out to be the Declaration of Independence and the “futility” of the petitioning experience of the early Americans lead to its inclusion in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) the U.S. Supreme Court declared the following:
“[T]he Petition Clause was intended to codify a pre-existing individual right, which means that we must look to historical practice to determine its scope. See District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 579, 592 (2008).” Guarnieri at 403.
“[To determine] the proper scope and application of the Petition Clause ... Some effort must be made to identify the historic and fundamental principles that led to the enumeration of the right to petition in the First Amendment, among other rights fundamental to liberty.” Guarnieri at 394.
“The right to petition is in some sense the source of other fundamental rights, for petitions have provided a vital means for citizens to request recognition of new rights and to assert existing rights against the sovereign.” Guarnieri at 397.
“Petitions to the government assume an added dimension when they seek to advance political, social, or other ideas of interest to the community as a whole. Petition, as a word, a concept, and an essential safeguard of freedom, is of ancient significance in English law and the Anglo-American legal tradition.” Guarnieri at 394.
76. Fact: Exhibit 67 is a true copy of “ARTICLES OF FREEDOM: THE WORKS OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 2009,” a non-political document which seeks to end violations of the U.S. Constitution and restore constitutional governance at the state and federal level. The product of eleven long days in St. Charles, Illinois, from November 11-21, 2010, by 116 delegates from 48 States, elected by the People from their States. The content of the Articles of Freedom includes fourteen Articles that address fourteen violations of the Constitution, each of which has had a devastating effect on America’s economy and the Nation. Each Article provides an overview of the problem and recommends corrective action to be taken by federal and State Governments and the People. A four-page Summary of the Fourteen Articles follows its page 53. On April 19, 2010, the delegates and other people from their States gathered in every State Capital and served copies of the Articles of Freedom on their State Governors at their State Capitol and on their members of Congress at their Federal Buildings. Also included is a copy of an April 13, 2010 Press Release covering the event planned for New York State. The Government did not respond, either by acknowledging its receipt or otherwixe.
77. Fact: https://rumble.com/v20j4s4-the-law-that-never-was.html is a true link to a 58 minute interview with William J. “Bill” Benson conducted shortly before his death at age 94 on May 5, 2021. Benson presents, in a well-spoken, clear, comprehensible and compelling manner, why he undertook the year-long research project, his findings, reactions by many People, and his numerous attempts to obtain a meaningful response from the government to which the government responded with nothing more than a heavy hand, including his incarceration and physical mistreatment for four years.
Dated: April 19, 2023
ROBERT L. SCHULZ
2458 Ridge Rd.
Queensbury, NY 12804