|
As I begin to write this article, I am on the train from D.C.
to the BWI airport, heading home, having filed yet
another set of papers in the Supreme Court of the
United States in defense of the Constitution. Once
again, the Government is in the process of
attempting to seize power from the People.
This time, regarding the A.I.G. and $700 Billion Wall Street
bailout plans, I filed an emergency motion asking
the U.S. Supreme Court to restrain the Government
from giving or lending taxpayer funds or credit in
exchange for private assets in aid of private
corporations, unless and until the government
defendants could show the Court where in the
Constitution it provides that the People have agreed
to share with the Government their power to purchase
private assets such as “toxic” mortgage-related
assets and non-toxic shares of bank stocks.
My argument is the People never gave that power to the
Government and the Government has taken another step
outside the boundaries We the People have drawn
around its limited, enumerated powers.
My case against the A.I.G. bailout and my case against the
$700 billion bailout were filed in federal District
Court on September 18 and September 24 respectively.
In each case I had filed a similar emergency motion
asking the Court to restrain the Defendants from
transferring the taxpayer funds until they produced
evidence before the Court that they had the legal
authority to do so.
In both cases, without waiting to hear from the government
defendants, the District Court (Judge Sharpe) denied
my emergency motion on the ground that I had “failed
to cite the Court’s jurisdiction” to hear the
constitutional challenge. This was obviously
nonsensical and untrue. Not only is the Court fully
aware of its unquestionable and inherent
jurisdiction to determine the constitutional
questions, but I had fully recited the legal basis
for the Court’s jurisdiction in the first paragraph
of each complaint under the heading, “Jurisdiction
and Venue.”
On September 30 I appealed Judge Sharpe’s evasive and
erroneous decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. As part of that appeal, I filed
a similar emergency motion asking the Appellate
Court to restrain the Defendants from transferring
taxpayer funds for the bailouts until they showed
the Court they had the authority to do so. On
October 10 the Court of Appeals notified me that it
had denied the motion on October 6. Still, the
government defendants had not filed any papers with
the courts in response to the two lawsuits, other
than a mere “Notice of Appearance” simply
identifying the DOJ attorney assigned to the case by
the defendants.
Because the application I filed today with SCOTUS is for a
stay, and because it was filed before
2:00 pm today, it should be decided this afternoon
by the individual justice assigned to my geographic
area. That would be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So, here I am, waiting for the Supreme Court of the
United States to timely respond to a judicial
Petition for Redress of Grievances challenging grave
violations of the Constitution by the other two
branches of the federal Government.
Click to read:
SCOTUS Emergency Motion for TRO
Schulz's Declaration SCOTUS TRO
I’m Not Hopeful…
I’m not very hopeful that SCOTUS will grant the relief
requested, not because my papers were not artfully
drawn or that I am not legally entitled to the
relief I have requested, but because I have learned
two important lessons during 30 years and more than
150 reported decisions in cases I have brought
against local, state and federal government
officials for violating various provisions of the NY
and US constitutions.
First, the judiciary is highly politicized and quite corrupt.
Second, the Wall Street merchants of debt are
omnipotent, controlling our government officials,
including judges and the political parties who
designate most of those candidates who appear on the
ballot on election day. Although I have won many
cases and set some constitutional precedents, each
time a case and controversy got too close to the
heart of the lines of money and power I would lose,
no matter how right I was on the law and no matter
how artfully drawn my papers.
Because of the significance of these lessons, their relevance
to current events, and the importance for people to
think about them as they attempt to make sense of
what is happening to them and our Republic, I will
briefly discuss a few of the judicial proceeding I
have been involved in that went to the heart of the
lines of money and power.
There was the 1994 case, “Schulz v. State of New York,” where
I challenged the power of the state of New York to
borrow $6 Billion without first obtaining the
approval of the People in a general election because
Art.
VII, Section 11 of the state Constitution requires all State debt to receive
prior approval by a majority of the voters in a
general election. (This amendment was added after
two financial collapses of the 19th
century which were widely recognized to have been
caused by government’s reckless spending and
borrowing policies and programs).
In the 1994 case the state hired outside attorney Arthur
Lyman (of U.S. Senate Iran-Contra Hearing fame) to
represent them and to oppose me. Incredibly, Lyman
argued that because the $6 Billion in bonds were to
be issued, not directly by the State, but on behalf
of the State by two of the State’s public
authorities, the debt was not the debt of the state,
and if it was not the debt of the state, the
provisions of the NY Constitution restricting the
incurrence of debt were irrelevant.
Although Lyman readily recognized that according to the NY
Constitution no money could come out of the State
treasury to pay back the bonds without an
appropriation by the State Legislature, he argued
the NY Constitution does not mandate that the
Legislature must make the appropriations and,
therefore, the bondholders would have no legal
recourse against the State if the Legislature failed
to make the appropriations. He argued that if
payment to the bond holders was not legally
enforceable, the bonds could not be classified as
debt and, therefore, the NY Constitution was
irrelevant.
By quoting Article
VII, Section 16 of the NY Constitution, I argued
that the People of the State long ago declared the
State would never default on its obligation to repay
money borrowed on behalf of the State. I
argued that if the Legislature failed to make the
appropriation, the State Comptroller was required by
the Constitution to set aside the next money
received by the state and to use it to pay the
bondholders, even before that money could be used to
pay the salaries of state workers. I argued any
bondholder threatened with not receiving principal
of or interest on his bonds would have legal
recourse by going to court and getting a writ of
mandamus to force the Comptroller to comply with
Article VII, Section 16 of the NY Constitution which
reads:
“The legislature shall annually provide by appropriation for
the payment of the interest upon and installments of
principal of all debts created on behalf of the
State…as the same shall fall due…If at any time the
legislature shall fail to make any such
appropriation, the comptroller shall set apart from
the first revenues thereafter received, applicable
to the general fund of the state, a sum sufficient
to pay such interest, installments of principal, or
contributions to such sinking fund, as the case may
be, and shall so apply the moneys thus set apart.
The comptroller may be required to set aside and
apply such revenues as aforesaid, at the suit of any
holder of such bonds.”
NY Const., Art
VII, Section 16.
Sidestepping (without mentioning) this constitutional
provision and my argument,
New York's
highest court ruled the state could borrow the $6
Billion without voter approval, because it would not
be the debt of the State, because repayment would
not be legally enforceable. The Court held that
any right that is not enforceable is not a right.
The decision opened the proverbial Northwest
Passage to massive amounts of what is commonly
referred to in NY as “back door” borrowing, the
incurrence of state debt without voter approval.
I took the case to SCOTUS on the ground of Due Process of
law. Without comment, SCOTUS decided not to hear
the case.
Another case that went to the heart of the lines of money and
power and reflects the politicization of the
judiciary and the power of the debt merchants was
We The People v United States, another case that
SCOTUS refused to hear even though it was a first
impression case calling for a declaration of the
meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment
to the US Constitution.
The case has its roots in events of 1913, when the Government
initiated the Federal Reserve System and its
principle lender security program, i.e., the
direct, un-apportioned tax on labor. The cartel of
private banks, to be known as the Federal Reserve
System, was not going to get into the business of
lending the U.S. Government money unless the
Government provided the lenders with the ultimate of
lender security – that is, a direct tax upon the
labor of the People to pay at least the interest on
the debt.
Despite the Supreme Court's early rulings beginning
in 1916 that such a tax was not constitutional, the
Government continues to enforce such a "tax" upon
the labor of Americans.
Beginning in 2000 this organization began to Petition the
Executive and Legislative branches of the federal
government for Redress regarding the Federal Reserve
System and its violation of the money clauses of the
Constitution, as well as the direct, un-apportioned
tax on labor and its violation of the tax clauses of
the Constitution. In 2004, the Judiciary was asked,
for the first time in history, to declare the
meaning of the accountability clause of the
Constitution – i.e., the last ten words of the First
Amendment.
Specifically, the Court was asked two questions: 1)
is the Government obligated by the First Amendment
of the Constitution to respond to the Petitions for
Redress (Remedy) of alleged violations of the
Constitution?; and 2) if Government does not
respond, do the People have the inherent Right to
withdraw their allegiance and support from the
Government?
The lower federal courts, in a wholly frivolous “stare
decisis” ruling, held the Government does not
have to listen or respond to the People. One judge
on the U.S. Court of Appeals (Judith Rogers) wrote,
while holding against the People, that the case was
truly unique (properly implying the judicial
doctrine of stare decisis could not apply)
and that it would be "interesting" to see how SCOTUS
handled the case.
In January 2008, without comment, SCOTUS refused to
hear the case, a case that, based on the historical
context and purpose of the accountability clause, could
have resulted in a tremendous
shift of power from the Government to the People,
where it was meant to be in the first place.
United States v We The People
is
yet another example of the power of the merchants of
debt and the corruption of the Judiciary.
This case demonstrates that the judiciary has taken on the
role of tax collector. It has decided it must help
the Executive branch collect the direct,
un-apportioned tax on labor, even if that means it
must ignore its own Supreme Court precedents,
abandon the Constitution, ignore the Law and
cooperate with the Department of Justice and the
IRS
in a constructive conspiracy to deny Due Process and
other fundamental Rights (such as Free Speech and
Freedom of the Press) to any who are dragged into
court for daring to question the legitimacy of any
aspect of the Internal Revenue laws.
We the People was charged with promoting an “abusive tax
shelter” following its free distribution of written
material to workers for submission to their
companies with a request that the companies submit
the materials to their corporate tax attorneys and
accountants to determine the accuracy of the
information. The information questioned the
constitutional authority of the Government to force
companies to withhold pay from workers’ paychecks.
In this case, the federal courts improperly granted DOJ’s
motion for a summary judgment against We The People
-- without any public hearing -- even though
significant material facts were in dispute, and
despite the fact that federal rules of civil
procedure clearly prohibit summary judgment under
such circumstances. Under our system of
Constitutional governance, the Government is
entitled to its arguments, but it is not entitled
to its version of the facts and it is certainly
not entitled to the luxury of a Star Chamber. The
very purpose of an independent, unbiased judiciary
is to insure the integrity of the Law for all who
invoke its protection. For instance, there are no
exceptions to the Bill of Rights for those who
question the Government’s authority under either the
money or tax clauses of the Constitution.
Yesterday, without comment, SCOTUS denied We The People’s
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, meaning it
decided it would not hear the case.
Last year at about this time, SCOTUS decided not to hear
another case of mine that went to the heart of the
lines of money and power – Schulz v
Washington
County. That case, probably more than any other proves just
how far the Courts are willing to go to protect the
merchants of debt.
In this case, Washington County (the NY county where I live)
admitted that it violated the NY Constitution when
two of its members quietly submitted a bill to the
State Legislature to authorize the County to incur
debt to pay for a privately owned garbage burning
incinerator, and to add the debt, operating cost and
profit of the project to the annual property taxes,
and then lied to the Governor to get him to sign the
bill into law, telling the Governor that the bill
had the unanimous support of the Washington County
Board of Supervisors, when in fact the matter had
never been on any agenda of the Board of Supervisors
and was never publicly discussed.
Article IX, Section 2 of the NY Constitution
prohibits the State Legislature from adopting any
law that will affect the property, affairs or
government of one County, unless 2/3 of the members
of that County’s governing body first votes its
approval, and attaches a copy of the proposed state
legislation to its Resolution.
Twice I challenged the illegal law in our State courts,
seeking to have the property tax reduced by the
amount of the cost of the incinerator project,
including the cost of servicing the debt.
This would mean, of course, that for the first time in NY’s
history, bondholders might not get paid (there being
a Supreme Court decision saying that if a unit of
government issues bonds in spite of constitutional
restrictions, the bondholder has no recourse against
the issuer of the bonds).
Twice those state Courts dismissed the case without
addressing the constitutional issue.
I then petitioned each of the 19 members of the
County Board of Supervisors, exercising my Right of
Redress, seeking a remedy of the violation of the
State Constitution. There was no response from any
of the members.
I then filed a case in the federal district court under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US
Constitution. (The First Amendment guarantees the
Right of Redress. The Fourteenth Amendment applies
the First Amendment to the States). At a hearing the
federal Judge asked the County’s attorney if I had
first taken the case to the State Courts. The
attorney said, “Yes.” The judge then asked the
attorney if the State Courts addressed my
constitutional claim in either of the two state
cases. The attorney said, “No.” The judge asked,
“Why not?” The attorney simply said the state courts
missed (overlooked) the constitutional challenge in
both cases.
Notwithstanding the county attorney’s admission, the federal
judge dismissed the case saying under federal law,
the federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases
involving local or State taxes if there is a
state remedy available. Obviously, I had proven
and the record showed a remedy was not available to
me in the State.
The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s
decision and SCOTUS decided, without comment, not to
hear the case.
Unfortunately, there are numerous other cases that I have
been directly involved in or have personally
witnessed that I can use to illustrate just how
politicized and corrupt the judiciary has become,
especially in cases that go to the heart of the
lines of money, taxes and power.
The time has come to more openly question and explain why I,
or anyone else, should continue to engage our
corrupt judiciary in a seemingly losing effort to
hold the Government accountable to the restrictions,
prohibitions and limited powers set forth in our
Constitution.
So Why Bother?
It’s the right thing to do on a number of levels.
First, that’s what the Judiciary is there for. The future is
unwritten for those that may follow in our footsteps
in the defense of the Constitution. I want to make
it very difficult for anyone in the future, who
questions how it came to be that that the Government
was able to routinely violate the Constitution, to
claim that those violations went unchallenged, or
that a challenger failed to exhaust all his judicial
remedies by taking the matter “all the way” after a
lower court ruled against him.
The violations must be peaceably, and thoroughly
challenged using the single practicable means the
Government has left open to us: Petitions for
Redress via the Judiciary.
Second, it is so terribly important for the People to
establish a complete historical record of the
Government’s persistent failures to respond to the
People’s intelligent, professional, rational and
repeated petitions for Redress of violations of the
Constitution. Court records establish such a
permanent, historical trail, providing our posterity
with a highly ordered and cohesively argued
justification for the acts they may ultimately
decide to take, in their Sovereign judgment, in
further defense of their Rights, their
Liberty,
and the Constitution.
What better justification could there be for the People to
withdraw their allegiance and support from the
Government until their Grievances are Redressed? It
would not be the first time in history that the
People justified their defiance by standing upon on
a solid record of repeated Petitions for Redress and
Government’s retorts and repeated injuries.
Home Now …
I’ve returned home from DC. It’s Wednesday
5:30 pm. I have not heard from Justice Ginsburg
regarding my emergency motion.
The DJIA has dropped another 733 points.
What is the Appropriate Next Step?
A free People should always ask, after each impasse, “What is
the appropriate next step, given the Government’s
violation of the Constitution, and its refusal to
respond to legitimate Petitions for Redress?”
Please know this: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial
branches are made up of ordinary men and women who
suffer the common human frailties of love of money
and power, and who abhor accountability. Beyond
these government employees lie hoards with special
interests that seek to exploit those frailties in
order to
feed at the federal tax trough.
The Constitution is all that stands between the People and
total tyranny and despotism. However, the
Constitution can’t defend itself. That
responsibility rests with the People.
However, most People prefer the calm sea of despotism to
constitutional activism. It’s one thing to declare
and talk about a violation of the Constitution, it’s
quite another to actually confront it.
Reasonable men and women of good conscience know the history
of man's long fight for
Liberty
as well as Freedom’s fragility and its vulnerability
to the natural forces of Government. They also know
well the consequences of inaction. However, the
inconveniences attending Liberty are great – giving
pause to many.
Everyone acts according to the dictates of his own values and
reason.
So it is that Government gains ground and
Liberty loses ground.
I, for one, believe defense of the Constitution and
resistance to tyrants is obedience to our Creator,
and that if We the People are to remain free, we
need to commit ourselves as "citizen centurions",
utilizing every available weapon provided by the
Constitution.
Jefferson said we should “Always take hold of things
by the smooth handle.” The smoothest thing the
People have to take hold of, to confront
unconstitutional behavior, is the Constitution
itself and its accountability clause.
If we have evidence of violations of the Constitution, we
have the unalienable Right of Redress – to Petition
the Government for Redress of these violations. If
the Government refuses to respond we have the
inherent Right to withdraw our allegiance and
support.
Whatever the future course of history, we need the historical
record to document that before the People took
action in their defense of the sacred Constitution,
the People gave the Government many, many chances
over many, many years to remedy its myriad
violations.
We the People do not draw near our servant
Government as aggressors. Our war is not a war of
conquest or overthrow. We fight solely in the
defense of our Constitution, our
Liberty, our Freedom, our unalienable Rights, and
our homes, families, and posterity. The record is
clear and unambiguous. We the People have repeatedly
Petitioned, humbly and in good faith. Our Petitions
have been met with scorn. We have entreated, and our
entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged,
and they have mocked, even now as our financial
calamity falls upon us - a bastard born of
excessive government force and constitutional abuse.
We must beg no longer; we must entreat no more.
No more Petitions.
Organization for defiance ought now to be the
mantra of those who understand the truth and have
reached the limit of their submission to a
Government that now routinely usurps power from the
People.
Closing (Rhetorical) Questions
What if the Government had responded, in November 2002 (six
years before our financial calamity) to our
Petition for Redress of Grievances regarding the
unconstitutional Federal Reserve System?
What if the Government had responded, in November
2002 (five months before the invasion of
Iraq) to our Petition for Redress of Grievances
regarding the unconstitutional Iraq Resolution?
Stay well and stay
vigilant.
Bob Schulz
Click to read:
SCOTUS Emergency Motion for TRO
Schulz's Declaration SCOTUS TRO
|
