Will Of The People

Inquiry:

The Removal Of Federal Officials & Powers

by

Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board

 

 

        Events crucial to understanding what led the people to believing the need to take this drastic action first began to develop decades ago. Underlying the public consciousness was a growing mistrust for government coming out of Nixon’s Watergate scandal and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Kennedy brothers assassinations (Schieffer, Bob, “Remembering JFK”, AARP, November 2013). Around the same time, corporate-backed legislation took on a more concentrated focus after the fuel crisis during President Nixon’s term. Loss to the people’s means, property, and voice began to be more prevalent with the advent of deregulation since the Reagan Administration. Over time, the people began to become more aware of how corporate-backed laws and government spending affected the individual, as income disparity and distanced officials became more apparent (“Inequity For All,” Robert Reich, 2013). Newsweek in May of 2007 reported on how corn ethanol energy debacle contributed to famine in Africa, and the coming Arab Spring would see the demand for democracy as an economic necessity, as a grocery cart shop owner would light himself on fire in Tunisia. By the time the economic crisis hit in the fall of 2008, attitudes of the people had already begun to shift and redefine party lines, as was evident by the 2006 midterm elections. When the Troubled Assets Recovery Program (a.k.a., Bank Bailout) transferred homeowner’s burdens to the taxpayer, no longer would the people be so trusting of corporations and government (“Inside Job”, Charles Ferguson, 2009; “The Flaw”, Steve Milne and Mark Foligno, 2011). “Soccer moms” and “office park dads” independents changed the face of the political map, and with them, the seeds of angst grew and found a voice as corruption and complacency became more commonplace in the federal government.
       Around mid-September 2010, Occupy Wall Street launched a protest against corporate strategies, such as controlling food and water supply, limiting distribution of wealth, restricting citizen’s rights, sustaining military campaigns, and secrecy in governance. Lack of accountability has been one of the complaints, although, illegal forms of corruption are difficult to verify. (Lobbying and corporate campaign contributions are not illegal.) This has contributed to the growing frustration by these protesters – who have indicated such are related to current policy issues of concern. It is not essential for the purposes of this inquiry to determine to what extent corrupt elements may exist in government, or what elements are inappropriately influenced by corporate meddling. Rather, this inquiry has determined that they could exist based on the order of events and that there is a sufficient and significant number of the populace who have believed they do exist.
       Demonstrators at rallies associated with the Tea Party movement during this time have also contributed to the recalling of federal officials from the conservative flip side of this angst – directed at government rather than corporations. The concerns of these demonstrators are primarily related to siphoning of income by over-taxation and over-regulation. This inquiry recognizes the historical role of these demonstrators as having contributed to the diversity of the people desiring for a changing of the guard amongst federal officials. But, although there may be valid social-political concerns, they have little or no association with the cause for constitutionally destructive governance (e.g., removing constitutional protections to take advantage of the people).
       For, this inquiry will focus on whether action on the part of the people is justified, with conditions being related to cause, and whether that action is appropriate, while exerting avoidance of partiality and preconceptions. Based on aforementioned historical events unique to this set of circumstances, it is possible there can exist simultaneously both justified genuine concern and absence of intent for elements that would cause jeopardy to the Constitution. (Cause, in this instance, is therefore defined as “real indications for genuine concern”, as it differs from probability, since such evidence is diagnostic in nature and the cause may be symptomatic of an entrenched political system rather than specific directed malice.) However, politically-motivated hatred is not cause for warrant of its victim. It may indicate the use of partisan misdirection as a political strategy, but that is speculation beyond the use of the political party system and, without evidence, has no bearing on this inquiry.
       The blasé response on the part of government officials to protests, petitions, and pleas may suggest the government’s view of the existence of such nefarious-sounding strategies as more conspiracy theory than conspiracy fact. However, it is equally likely to experience silence tactics and laxed responses as a form of bureaucracy in this political climate, and does not, in of itself, prove intent. Although, actions on the part of the federal government seem to indicate they knew of these strategies and even participated in their reformulation, does suggest some form of collusion. Prior to the terrorist attack on Long Island on September 11, 2001, lawmakers passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty law (ATDP), National Special Security Event (NSSE). The public was not made aware until recently by whistleblowers these laws enabled intelligence powers, helped to define possible domestic use of military application, and restricted citizen protest. Following 9/11, these powers were broadened in the USA Patriot Act, Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act (a.k.a., GRABIF), Protect IP Act (PIPA), and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), National Defense Resources Preparedness Authorization Act (NDRP), and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The secrecy suggests complicity and duplication indicates intent.
       The people claim these laws are so broad in scope or are so vague in application that there is no protection for the people, or contains the illusion of protection. This inquiry finds there is support for vague interpretation and wide application in the language of these laws as they are presently written. Although the creation of these laws are often outsourced and suggests attorneys may hold some blame (unproven and not part of the people’s claim, but certainly related to a responsibility of such constitutional duties), it does not stand to reason that officers of the federal government could contribute to the cooperation for deception and secrecy of these laws without collusion. If true, these laws are too numerous to be coincidence and are too specific a strategy to be mistaken, and at the very least suggest some level of participation, or a collective effort, to act with purpose to undermine federal law, the Constitution, and every basis of higher law (U.S.C. A(5) (General Malfeasance); U.S. Constitution First Amendment (Rights of the People); Declaration of Independence (Basis for Governance); Magna Charta (Consent of the Governed); Court of Khisiarshu (Protection Against Oppressive Government). This inquiry finds that documents submitted to the courts support this claim (Rush, et al. v. United States, 1:14-cv-00077; and “People v. United States, Extraordinary Writ”).
       What is significant is that, with the exception of the Patriot Act, most of these post 9/11 changes were made after the 2009 Troubled Assets Recovery Program (a.k.a., Bank Bailout) and Affordable Health Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare). There are also laws now being introduced that restrict trade (e.g., ECPA, TPP) and powers of the president (i.e., HR3857). This suggests the underlying intent is beyond mere taxation and over-regulation of executive pay that Tea Partiers demonstrate against, or there would not exist a need for the duplication of these laws in support after the fact, as this inquiry finds it. These laws appear to be in advance of peak oil economics, beginning 2014, as predicted by Kuwaiti scientists in 2010. The People assert the claim these laws exist to quell any dissent when fossil fuel and petroleum-based chemical companies use economics of scarcity to manipulate and take advantage of fuel, energy, and chemical prices – which could very well be true. In this regard, it is only necessary to show probable connection and sufficient evidence that would lead the people to be concerned for their well-being, as is such the case. Again, it is not the purpose of this inquiry to ascertain whether this would be a corporate strategy, or even if corporations have made a concerted effort to push these laws. For lawmakers, and government officials in general – as constitutionally delegated powers are understood, carry the burden of being responsible for the content, application, enforcement and judgment for legislative works.
       At issue, it is claimed these laws blatantly violate or skirt around the Bill of Rights and are contrary to the duties to uphold and protect the Constitution. It is ascertained by this inquiry that key components of these laws, in particular, are at least at odds with the First Amendment right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition for redress, Second Amendment guarantee to well-regulated militia for a free state, Third Amendment guarantee of no intrusion into one’s house during peacetime, Fourth Amendment right to property protection and privacy, Fifth Amendment right to due process and liberty, Ninth Amendment right to not construe denial of other rights not listed, Tenth Amendment powers of the people for governed consent and representation, the spirit of the law for free elections, and possibly others – which might never be fully known. The government also violated key components of the Articles and federal laws in its actions and court decisions, as court document submissions correctly assert. These, along with other acts, suggest the people have every right to be concerned, and would support the claim that the Constitution is in jeopardy and the people’s lives, livelihood and liberty may be in peril (18 U.S.C § 371 (Conspiracy); U.S.C. A(5) (General Malfeasance); 28 U.S.C. § 631(i); 18 U.S.C. § 2101 (Incitement, Encourage violence against the people as it applies to constitutionally unauthorized governmental or military use)).
       During this time, the people rightly rejected the premise of the “GRABIF” Anti-trespass law, and continued to assemble in front of congressional and federal buildings in various cities throughout the nation as civil disobedience, and some were improperly jailed for it. The federal government did not allow and made laws against peaceable assembly, in direct contradiction to the First Amendment (U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, “Abridge”). On or about July 4, 2012, it is recorded the people assembled in a Continental Congress to draft a formal petition of the people to present to the government. It is not known what specific officials of the federal government were addressed, only that the government was informed and a copy of the petition was posted online (the99declaration.org, 2012). The duty of the federal government is to act for petitions to be redressed, as per the First Amendment. “Redress”, an archaic word, means simply to “put on a new coat” over the issue. Meaning, as a right of the people to receive correctments to their petition, a government acting under the Constitution would, in fact, be obligated to respond with measurable action. And, that action is assumed to attempt a direction away from the grievance(s) that caused the issue(s), but that is ideally rather than measure of accountability. Response on the part of government is accountable, however, as the Constitution is understood.
       The federal government does not have the option of refusal of a genuine petition over something that causes grief. Yet, it refused the petition of the people by not responding (or not responding appropriately) in a manner that could be recognized as moving forward to address the particular issue(s). Even if there were a communications breakdown and it never received the actual petition, the government would still be obligated to answer the people in a manner that could eventually remove the grievance(s), which it did not do (U.S.C. A(5) (General Malfeasance); 28 U.S.C. § 631(i) and supplimented by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–12(c)(2) (Special Committees for Malfeasance); First Amendment (Right for Redress)). Any law toward an unrealistic burden upon the people for the government’s response is of no effect, at least in this instance, because the petition’s existence was, in fact, already communicated. For, redirection or misdirection of a response on the part of the government could be viewed as an obstruction to the petition for redress (U.S.C. A(5) (General Malfeasance); 18 U.S.C. Part I, Ch 73 § 1505 (Obstruction of an Agency)). A response to the people, in this investigator’s view, must then address any issue of communication as soon as it arises – without encumbrance of additional steps – until communication is restored. The government is without excuse.
       The Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government ceased being authorized of the Constitution when they failed their First Amendment duties to permit assembly and redress petitions. On or about May 28, 2013, the people submitted and Extraordinary Writ to the Supreme Court detailing the jeopardy and peril. The Clerk of the Supreme Court rejected the submission, in the words of the people, for “frivolous grounds at odds with its own rules, federal law, and,” duty to “the First Amendment” (as per, Rush, et al. v. United States, 1:14-cv-00077, Colorado District Court). There is support for this claim of the people, but the rules of the court also state the clerk has discretion (Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 1.1, 2010). However, the duty to the First Amendment supercedes any rules of the court, as correctly contested by the people. Rightly believing the court to be in error, and having reason to believe that the court would not respond favorably to an “error brief”, the people sought another course of relief.
       It is believed that the filing of an error brief could end the path of legal options available to the people by exhausting the question at issue, and is the reason the people decided to notify the government of a new direction altogether. It is not known if that is indeed the case – whether the legal options available to the people would be exhausted or not, or whether an amicus would have any effect. It is understood, however, that there was a question of constitutional jeopardy due to a conundrum of governance that could not be resolved by filing a brief. As such, this inquiry finds this explanation on the part of the people to be satisfactory, that the court cannot be at odds with a constitutional process without potentially becoming a participant to the collusion, and also unauthorized of the Constitution. This inquiry also recognizes the possibility the court can simultaneously both be in error and not knowingly a participant to the collusion. The court’s reluctance – whether improper or not, places the Constitution in jeopardy of not having resolution to the matter of unauthorized governance. However, the Supreme Court did provide reasons for its rejections that were not consistent with its own rules under the Constitution, as Rules of the Supreme Court are examined in Rush, et al., v. United States, filed with Colorado Federal District court, and reasserted under contempt orders (“Non-Committing Action For Civil Contempt Order To Enforce Will Of The People”, Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board). This creates a conundrum of governance and this inquiry finds the people correctly asserted their powers when jeopardy of the Constitution occurred.
       The people should and do have the option of reserved federal powers whenever the United States government, in part or whole, is no longer delegated authority of the Constitution, as per the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment declares, in part, when “powers are not delegated to the United States [federal government], they are reserved to the people.” It is determined that the people can, in fact, revoke their governed consent when faced with a conundrum of governance. It is determined that the people do, in fact, provide accountability to the government and have limited powers to enforce that accountability, as the people must enforce for contempt, but is limited, as indictment by a grand jury is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. It is assumed that the people have limited federal powers [in] “acts in equity” [for] the process of removing grievances (equitable decision authority), else constitutional jeopardy might occur again. It is determined that the reserved federal powers of the people are temporary, as the people have the duty to restore authorized federal government, else the constitutional jeopardy would continue.
       After several advance notices over the next few weeks to the court clerk and various branches for reasons described above, the people filed for federal recall election starting on September 20, 2013 with local elections officials throughout the 50 states and 3 of the territories. There is no law for or against a people-initiated federal recall, but the courts have turned down state-initiated federal recalls due to conflict of powers (Maskell, Jack, “Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office”, Congressional Research Service, 2012). Based on such interpretation for conflict of powers, the people cannot use state’s petition and electoral college systems, either – even if recalling a president, as in this instance. As such, it is understood a people-initiated federal recall must decide its own rules for holding elections, wholly separate from the states’ powers, aside from using election organization, printing and mailing services, as has been sought.
       A legal analysis in 2009 entitled “Recalling U.S. Senators And Congressmen” by U.S. Citizens Association’s legal counsel David C. Grossack, says of the Tenth Amendment, “it appears clear that …the people …should be recognized to have the right of [federal] recall.” This direction is supported by 99% Declaration’s legal counsel in explanations of the people’s authority and constitutional application, but is not obvious (Pollock, Michael S., “Reboot democracy with Continental Congress 2.0”, April 9, 2012. Wickedlocal.com, Retrieved July 12, 2012; Kearns Goodwin, Doris, "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln", Simon & Schuster, 2006). Precedent for revolts to establish or reestablish higher laws with the founding of the United States, history of the Magna Charta, and the Court of Khisiarshu exist throughout this country’s legal roots, but there is little other precedent to show what a people are to do if a Constitution is already in place, or how to get the government to cooperate with it short of anarchy (“Revoked Consent of the Governed”, Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board, 2014). The cautious and deliberate approach by this inquiry is necessary for this reason.
       But, this inquiry cannot find fault with the people for initiating a federal recall election in this instance, and is preferable to the alternative, as the laws being protested contain possible policestate language and both anarchy and police-state historically have prompted catastrophic results. Whether the government-subsidized media were willing participants in the conspiracy, it is ascertained they have been constricted by the government, as evidence as to “distraction entertainment” during key legislative and executive action suggests (various sources). However, to what degree this constriction on media exists, whether it is voluntary, is not known. It is suspected, but not proven, that media corporations are willing and advisory participants. Based on founding precedent, the Constitution guarantees “freedom of the press”, a revocable privilege, and exists in order to protect the Constitution by disseminating dissent of the people, as was used by the Founding Fathers. The spirit of the law, in this instance then, suggests the media were at least acting contrary to the purpose of their First Amendment guarantees and may be brought for indictment before a grand jury, but also did act with contempt for the authority of the people. This inquiry finds the media must comply with the contempt orders to publish the constitutional process.
       Several states have actively been changing voting laws since the Supreme Court threw out the Voting Rights Act of 1965 around July of 2013. The court and states were not authorized of the people to challenge elections. Notices sent by the people on or around June 11, 2013 negated unconsented use of federal powers, as further enforced by federal recall filing on September 20 of that same year. It is ascertained that the people correctly filed for a governmental agency answerable to the people, and has contempt authority (28 USC 4.1(b)). The Supreme Court ruling was struck down as unauthorized in contempt orders by Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board when submitted to Federal District Court on or about the following Spring. The people have reason to believe that federal elections officials would not publish the election in response to a notice, and elections are no longer consented to be in federal purview, and is a satisfactory explanation to this inquiry. When the states refused to publish the recall on the part of the people, then, the states unwittingly committed a fraud against the public for interfering with an election. Although the facts do not reveal any evidence for collusion by state elections officials for the changes in state laws, the powers clause of the Tenth Amendment declares that “powers are reserved to the states or to the people.” States are obligated, then, by constitutional duty to share election powers, which they did not when refusing the people’s federal recall and when acting in contempt for the authority of the people. It is determined the states interfered with a national election, as national and state election laws remained in force, and states had the constitutional duty to preserve the will of the people in these matters, and must comply with contempt orders to publish notification of the election.
       Based on these facts, federal officials did, in fact, conspire for the replacement of components of the Bill of Rights without constitutional process or consent of the governed, and did attempt to restrict the people from asserting their rights and interfere with an election, at least legislatively (18 U.S.C § 371 (Conspiracy); 18 U.S.C. Part I, Ch 73 § 1505 (Obstruction of an Agency); U.S. Constitution Article III § 3 (Treason)). The people managed to file registering documents for candidates, and the election was legally held on January 14, 2014, and interim terms began January 18. The odd circumstance of an election being held, in which the people were not able to be informed at no fault or influence of the candidates or voters, while simultaneously being legal and proper, is an uncommon combination in the world. This inquiry finds no fault with the election on the part of the people as it was made, and the United States and its states must comply with contempt orders to relinquish office and authority.
       It may not be possible to ascertain if there is actual peril, however. There is perceived peril over actual conspiracy to undermine and replace components of the Constitution for the removal of the rights and guarantees to the people without constitutional process (18 U.S.C § 371 (Conspiracy); 18 U.S.C. Part I, Ch 73 § 1505 (Obstruction of an Agency); 18 U.S.C. § 2101 (Incitement, to encourage violence against the people as it applies to constitutionally unauthorized governmental or military use); U.S. Constitution Article III § 3 (Treason, as it applies to constitutional jeopardy)). That is sufficient cause for the people to revolt (Declaration of Independence, Introduction, Preamble ¶2). A revolt is defensible in this instance due to the catastrophic collapse of constitutional protections, leaving the people without an authorized government. Instead, the people chose to exercise their Tenth Amendment powers in order to preserve their rights under the Constitution.
       Based on the foregoing, this inquiry finds the government did act willfully, with disregard for the Constitution and federal laws in contempt of the will of the people with obstruction, to conspire for the replacement of state over of the Bill of Rights, with interference for legal process, and the people are perfectly within their rights, powers, and means. Although a grand jury must still indict for these assertions, the manipulations and non-compliance are sufficient cause for warrant. The people have correctly navigated self-imposed constraints of existing precedent according to their own admissions, and this inquiry finds delegated authority of the United States transferred over to the people, being asserted at jeopardy of the Constitution when conundrum of governance occurred. THEREFORE, this inquiry finds warrant for removal to be appropriate, wherein the election stands, with powers of the people having full force and effect.

        For, using contempt powers (28 U.S.C. § 4.1(b), 18 U.S.C. § 402), Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board denounced the fraudulent acts and illegal decisions on the part of heads of state and the courts for rejecting the rights of the people and refusing to be governed by consent, as per laws against malfeasance, conspiracy, incitement, and sedition (prividing militaristic weapons and assistance to local police in Fergusson, Missouri under these new laws involves "use of force" to quell the people for an ideology the people already contested as being against the Constitution).  This legal process established government was not being incompetent, and was not simply acting unauthorized of the Constitution: the federal government can only be illegitimate and all things must be restored to the Constitution.

        Will of the People C.A.B. requested the assistance of U.S. Marshals to implement the recall (April 18, 2014), then sent warrants calling for the removal of officials in D.C. that had been recalled (Aug 16, 2014), and followed up with ordering notices to be published by the Federal Registrar under general applicability for a government body exercising a penalty (44 U.S.C § 1505 (a)(2)).  All refused to honor the weight and severity of U.S. law under the U.S. Constitution, against federal law for obstruction of an agency (18 U.S.C. Part I, Ch 73 § 1505), which is treasonous when acting to advantage enemies of the State according to Article III, Section 3, Par. 1 (see Constitutional Law and U.S. Code included with contravening laws for details below). 

       Certainly, there is much more here than can be briefly stated in an inquiry, but the question before law enforcement is not whether all of this true: the question is whether the people have the right to hold the government accountable according to the founding fathers and their documents (see Quotes below), and whether this is likely enough to merit calling on a grand jury to decide any criminality, as per the Fifth Amendment.  The answer, of course, is ‘yes’ on both accounts, as has been established.  This is our system of law, and it is each and every person’s duty to see it is carried out.

        The federal recall of 2014 must be implemented before the recent fraudulent general election held November 2014 would have time to take hold.  With that, the Supreme Court and Congress (Capitol Hill and related federal offices) must be sealed off by order of the Constitution and will of the people.  President Barack Obama, Senate President and Vice-President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House John Boehner (at time of occurrence), and Chief Justice John Roberts have effectively been unseated by legal process, and must be removed from office and premises immediately.  They must be restrained and held, stripped of privilege and title, until transferred to the care of U.S. Marshals (when restored to the U.S. Constitution), to await a grand jury trial per the Fifth Amendment (according to the powers of the people).

        The Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board has the oversight authority and has been vested with constitutional powers of the people for full executive authority and necessary judicial function.  Delegated federal powers have returned to the people, as per the Tenth Amendment (excerpts from the text of the people's initial court documents, People v. United States, can be found on the Declaration page).  All power and privilege of the Executive Branch and the Whitehouse is to be effectively transferred over to Will of the People Constitutional Authority Board, until the Constitution is reaffirmed in joint session of Congress and laws of the people are restored, and an executive authorized of the Constitution enters office by the verified recall results.

        Restoration of the United States back to a Constitution of the people, by the people, and for the people needs to happen immediately.  These actions are by order of the Constitution and will of the people for the preservation and protection of the United States as guaranteed by the Constitution and affirmed by the founding fathers.

 

 

Partial List of Laws Contravening the U.S. Constitution

 

National Special Security Event (NSSE) and Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act (a.k.a., GRABIF) restrict the right to protest in front of lawmakers.  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Protect IP Act (PIPA), and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) allows for spying on American citizens and taking electronic effects without warrant or probable cause.  Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty law (ATDP), National Defense Resources Preparedness Authorization Act (NDRPA), and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides for domestic military assistance and expands military powers in peacetime.  These laws, and the acts on the part of federal government to conceal them, are illegal according to Articles I, § 2, Par. 3, § 8, Last Par.; II, § 1, Last Par.; III, § 2, Par. 1 & 2; V; VI, Last Par.; and Amendments I; II; III; IV; V; VI; X; XIII; XIV § 4 of the U.S. Constitution.  Regardless of any legal stance purported by the government as justification, these laws were protested by the people as being egregious.  These laws apply the use of “force” and qualify as sedition according to U.S. law (Ch. 115 USC §§ 2381 - 2385, Title 18), and incitement to encourage violence against the people as it applies to supplying militaristic weaponry to local police in Fergusson, Missouri (28 U.S.C. § 631(i); 18 U.S.C. § 2101), and, along with 2009 Troubled Assets Recovery Program (a.k.a., Bank Bailout), Affordable Health Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare) and restriction of trade (e.g., ECPA, TPP, etc.), counts as general malfeasance (U.S.C. A(5)) and conspiracy for economic benefit (18 U.S.C § 371).

 

Partial List of Documents and Notices by the People

 

Petition for a Redress of Grievances, in Continental Congress July 4, 2012; revised, May 28, 2013.

Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus in lieu of Prohibition, Replies, and Notices, May - August, 2013.

Specific Federal Recall Election Procedures, Rules, and Filings, September – November, 2013

Complaint To Obtain Indictment And Administration (1:14-cv-00077-BNB), December 31, 2013

Non-committing Action For Civil Contempt, Replies, Judgments, and etc., January - June, 2014

Warrant For Leave (of office) and Affidavit In Support Of Leave, August 16, 2014

 

Certain Rules and Applicable Law

 

Quotes

George Washington said in 1787, “The power under the [U.S.] Constitution will always be in the People… and, whenever it is executed contrary to their Interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled.”  The Declaration of Independence even goes so far as to say, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” it is a “right of the people to alter or abolish…” “any form of government that is destructive,…” “laying its foundation on such principles”.  These are known definitions for powers of the people declared in the Tenth Amendment.  There is no other course needed or required.

 

Frivolous Rejection by Supreme Court

The Clerk of the Supreme Court on June 11, 2013 rejected the Extraordinary Writ because the paper was not 6 1/8 x 9 1/4.  Supreme Court Rules (adopted Jan. 12, 2010) for extraordinary writ in 33.2(b) has no restrictions clause as in 33.2(a) pro-se filings for page limits and format, and is stated can be on 8 1/2 by 11.  However, the body of every writ (under certiorari rules) without exception is required to be in booklet format (Rule 33.1).  Either the format requirement for extraordinary writ is too costly to remind the court of its own rules or the law is too confusing.  Other indications in the letter expressed a lack of items for items that were, in fact, included.  Regardless, laws and rules for submitting petition for grievances of the people are subject to the First Amendment purview of the people.  The Court has no legislative prerogative and petitions for redress are a right of the people.  So, the rules of the court are not only unreasonable and unachievable, they are obstructive for a constitutional right of the people to hold government accountable.

 

Frivolous Rejection by Federal District Court

The Federal District Court of Colorado refused electronic submission even though mailing placed an unreasonable demand on the plaintiffs due to physical limitations for health reasons.  The filers did provide all information requested, as is allowed by federal law.  Federal Civil Procedure Rule 5(d)(4) says that “a clerk of the court must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form prescribed.”  However, the court misconstrued further documents as a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), when in fact, the failure to cure was on the part of the court to provide any exemption or exception permissible by stated Federal Civil Procedure and rules of the court that “allows the electronic filing of documents in all cases” according to their website and admission.  Instead, the court provided an option for statement of perjury without recognition of the filer’s cause, reasonings, or justifications, all without resolution of the primary concerns of the filers.  This process exposed the court’s unwillingness to recognize the constitutional authority of the people.

​

Top ∙  Home