April 12, 2008
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.
be no doubt. The federal judiciary is now being utilized as
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
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.
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.
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
This conspiracy against the Constitution cannot be tolerated
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.”
People’s constitutional injuries were compounded.
The Government ignored the People and their Petition for
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
see the Washington Post photo and article. Click here
People’s constitutionally noxious and deleterious injuries
mounted. Several days after the Washington Post article appeared, the
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.
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.
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
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.
the People’s unjust injuries at the hands of the courts
increased in the extreme.
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
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)
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
Petition for En Banc Rehearing (.pdf)
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.
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.
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
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.
What price is Liberty?
Help us by
Joining the WTP Congress for only $7/month
Please remember, the
the WTP Foundation
Generous (tax-deductible) Support.