Ron Paul is Breaking My Heart

Paul doesn't have to respond, but it would be horribly inconsistent with his reputation as a constitutional champion. Paul has appeared at WTP events in recent years where the petition was specifically discussed, so this is not new to him. Paul or his office not only were repeatedly informed about the petition, but according to the article his office DIALOGUED with Schulz and asked for WTP to supply them with a definition of what was a proper petition for redress as per the Constitution---which WTP supplied. If Paul didn't show up at the July march that 5,000 or so attended, you know there would have been an uproar. But here he is not showing up to address a properly drafted petition that over 80,000, or SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE SIGNED. This is at least 16x bigger a mistake than not appearing at a movement march.

BTW, the DECLARATION is also a petition, that established (by the Crown's nonresponse and disregard of it) the basis for the colonists casting off the British state as having no authority over them. That is, after all, the legal basis for starting this country in the first place. The Declaration was a petition against King George’s abuses. By not acknowledging the abuses or correcting them at all, Britain gave no recourse for the colonies to preserve popular sovereignty EXCEPT to start a new goverment, where their common law rights would be preserved.

The answer to the current petition, by implication, is the same. Either this government (via its individual officials, or corporately) must AT LEAST formally acknowledge the 7 abuses and swiftly correct them, or else we need a revolution to install a new government to restore our sovereignty and rights as per the established 800 year old common law tradition. A new law, or a Supreme Court ruling or other token reform, WILL NOT SUFFICE as an answer. The protection of our rights depend on a state that WE are master over, and jumps whenever we ask her to. A state that does not has declared it is the master, and our rights and liberties are off the table. Paul should answer the petition, if he still wants to save this Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Paul doesn't have to respond, but it would be horribly inconsistent with his reputation as a constitutional champion. Paul has appeared at WTP events in recent years where the petition was specifically discussed, so this is not new to him
+1
 
The petitions were served by a constituent of each congressperson. (See the following from WTP site)


Why would Bob Schultz start a hunger strike when the congresspeople have until Friday before Phase 2 will start to begin?


That's the thing - they can't be served to any member of congress by a constiuent - it has to go up the chain of command, elected official to elected official, so all the constituent had to do was first bring it to their local elected official that begins that chain of command - and it can't be served to congress as a whole, it has to be done on an individual basis - and it has to outline the articles/amendments broken by state constitution and/or federal constitution, and then it has to give instructions as to what is to be the penalty (re: immediate removal from office.)

Bob Schultz was supposed to speak at the Washington DC March/Rally, but instead the crowd was told he was not there because he'd begun his hunger strike - I'm not sure exactly why he did that, but it breaks my heart - please, reach out to him, tell him to end the hunger strike and to guide us through our state constitutional procedures - it's going to vary state by state, so Bob will need a lot of supporters to do the work that has to be done. He has the right idea, it just needs to be done in the right steps is all. He's a brilliant, brilliant man - but he's been trying to save this Republic for decades and I think he's just so tired now, exhausted and frustrated - we need to somehow re-inspire him, to get him to want to live for this cause, not to die for it.

The word petition meant something much different back when the constitutions were written than it does today - all a petition was back then was a written (and possibly even just verbal) recognizing and set of instructions/penalties for infringements on the constitution - this process was supposed to be a lot more easier and simplistic than our federal government has made it. But until those amendments are taken out of the federal constitution, they remain the current procedure.

Something can be null and void, but there's still a process to go through in order to get it completely removed - same goes for our elected political officials - there's a procedure that must be followed in order to hold them accountable.
 
. Paul should answer the petition, if he still wants to save this Constitution.

He can't do that, simply because he abides by the Constitution and the procedures within it - he'd be breaking his oath of office, basically, if he even attempted to respond to it. It didn't follow procedure as it currently stands.

But if it followed Constitutional procedure.... Congressman Paul has probably been waiting, patiently, for the day it would come to him in a way he actually could address it.

After all - he is the champion of the Constitution.
 
He can't do that, simply because he abides by the Constitution and the procedures within it - he'd be breaking his oath of office, basically, if he even attempted to respond to it. It didn't follow procedure as it currently stands.

But if it followed Constitutional procedure.... Congressman Paul has probably been waiting, patiently, for the day it would come to him in a way he actually could address it.

After all - he is the champion of the Constitution.

Please describe the proper procedure
 
Did congress make a law infringing upon the right to petition for redress of grievances?

I don't get it. What makes you think just because there is a petition that there must be a response, rather than that you should just not have your right to petition infringed upon by a law?
 
Please describe the proper procedure

it varies state by state - State Constitutions must be read to find out exacly how to do it for each state, and I've only personally read 4 state constitutions so far and don't know the exact procedure for each state, but one thing is for sure, there's a LOT of work to do, state constitutions are mangled but until we all learn the principles, and the procedures, the fixing can't even begin -

Also, the petitions can't be done to a body politic as a whole - it has to be done on an individual basis.
 
Did congress make a law infringing upon the right to petition for redress of grievances?

?

YES! And Bob even talked about it at his seminar he did in Massachusetts earlier this year!

It is a federal block that has to be navigated STATE by STATE, town by town, city by city! I've talked with him about this in person, via email, on the phone - he tried to make some of the changes, but I think he's just tired of the rollercoaster ride that politics have become - it isn't supposed to be this complicated. Bob's frustrated - how can we help him to let us help him? We easily would have a few people in each state willing to do the head work needed to get his idea accomplished -

The principles are so easy to understand - our founding fathers never would have made it 'hard' and 'confusing' for us to hold elected officials accountable. But federal government HAD TO as it became an entity out to protect itself and not you - not we, the people.

I'm working on a diagram that my mentor taught me about all of this - once we all grasp the concepts of the principles, it gets much easier to navigate, nutty as that sounds - the principles of liberty and freedom are what unite us, and they are vital in every single aspect of what we set out to do via action.

We've got to abide by the principles in order to achieve this - and, oddly enough, in order to even understand what it is we're to do.

State Constitutions have a set procedure, but the article it is in is different for each state - but it's very concise, as long as you know the definition for each word in the article as it was written in the time it was written ( definitions of words today had different meanings back then - )


As our elected officials are somewhat clueless on constitutions and constitutional procedure, it's important to give instruction to them, as most in office will have no idea what they are supposed to do -

know how we've been talking about education being key? Our elected officials are the ones who need to be educated most on the state constitution they swore an oath to uphold - if they refuse to learn and abide by the rule of law, the law of the land, the principles that make liberty and freedom 'live', we have no choice but to remove them from office (peacefully, through constitutional procedure.)
 
as I have inlaws up this week, instead of waiting to get the diagram done in a very concise manner, I'll try to do it up in text here - but this is the most important part of things, because once you understand what it means, you'll be more than half way there to getting to the work that needs to be done. This is the the level of power, with the supreme law at the top.

YOUR CREATOR/GOD AND/OR THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY/FREEDOM AND YOUR RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND THE SEEKING AND OBTAINING OF HAPPINESS <--- hold up all to this


YOU, THE INVIDUAL, THE CITIZEN BORN/CREATED WITH THOSE RIGHTS/PRINCIPLES

TOWN/CITY GOVERNMENT and/or CHARTERS (semi mini constitutions for each town city, not all towns/cities have one)

STATE GOVERNMENT (state constitution)

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (federal constitution, very limited in power/role.)



See... we've been led to believe the most powerful is federal government... it isn't. It is the least powerful of all - your creator/God and/or the principles of freedom and liberty are FAR MORE powerful, as they are the law of the land, logical and compassionate, and all the responsibilities to uphold them and protect them are on YOU, the individual, as you are next in line to your creator and/or the principles themselves - which is why I've been saying that atheists are actually the creator's greatest defenders, they just don't know it, because what they seek to protect are the principles themselves, and that is the core of what makes life/happiness possible and sustainable -

State Constitutions outline the procedure(s) - each state constitution is online, but it's even better to get a copy from your state book store or state house via the secretary of state - and become the statesmen and stateswomen we all need to become - read it, highlight it, study it, investigate it - hold everything up to the principles and what the role of government is and isn't to be, and what parts of society belong to us and can't be transfered to government at all or it will become unsustainable as government will only grow and eventually seek to only sustain its size and scope and control (re: charity, tourism, environment, health, etc.)

The role of government, state and federal, is meant to be very small - a lot of responsibility falls upon us, as citizens, but that is for a reason - we are very capable of the work and logic and compassion needed to achieve it - government isn't and never could be, as it's not close enough to the principles and/or the creator. We've got to demand back our charity most of all, it's a very important connection that government has turned into a massive inhumane entity - I feel like somebody farted in my mouth just thinking about it. (sorry, I can't stay serious for too long before some weird little comment slips from my skull.)
 
Did congress make a law infringing upon the right to petition for redress of grievances?

I don't get it. What makes you think just because there is a petition that there must be a response, rather than that you should just not have your right to petition infringed upon by a law?

I just read through some of the lit. and watched the videos on the site.

"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."

This text clearly does not specify that the government must respond to any petition.

If there was procedure in the past that made responses the norm, was a law passed that ended that procedure? Was it a formal procedure or rule...or was it simply an informal procedure? In order for the government to cease that procedure would it have taken a law?

I'd love to see a response to the items listed on the site. But what about other issues? Even frivolous issues? Who decides what's frivolous? Do our congressmen and senators have to hear every single issue and respond to it? What qualifies as a legitimate response?

Are we permitted to withhold payment of taxes until the grievance is redressed or is it until the petition is responded to (even if we don't like the response)?

Has anyone tried the idea that we may withhold payment of taxes until a petition is responded to? Was a letter sent to the IRS informing them that payment of taxes is withheld until a response to the petition of redress of grievances is received thereby inviting the IRS to begin prosecution proceedings?

If the matter were taken to criminal court it would ensure a government response and a decision on the matter of this assertion, if the 1st amendment was used as the basis of the defendant's defense it may provide a path to higher courts through appeal. The defendant may lose the initial case, of course, but it would certainly garner some attention - and provide a course higher through appeal. Or it may cause the petition to be responded to. Or the defendant might win the case in a trial by jury, which should definitely earn publicity.
 
also, before I leave, for a fun little adventure, go to your town hall and ask the town clerk for a state constitution and see what transpires... experience varies town by town/city by city. My favorite was a town hall in Massachusetts where the town clerk told me to try Border Books (hahaha! State Constitutions can't be sold...)

or... visit your local library and check to see if your reference section has a STAND ALONE copy of your state constitution. If they don't, get one in there via donation.

Also - if anyone would want to help me obtain a book copy of each state constitution, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a SASE to snail mail me one- I'd like to start a collection of official copies of each state's constitution, because I one day want to teach a class on state constitutions, but have a lot of learning to do and figured a collection would make a nice visual prop for a classroom. I already have Massachusetts and New Hampshire - just need the rest.
 
I just read through some of the lit. and watched the videos on the site.

"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."

This text clearly does not specify that the government must respond to any petition.

If there was procedure in the past that made responses the norm, was a law passed that ended that procedure? Was it a formal procedure or rule...or was it simply an informal procedure? In order for the government to cease that procedure would it have taken a law?

I'd love to see a response to the items listed on the site. But what about other issues? Even frivolous issues? Who decides what's frivolous? Do our congressmen and senators have to hear every single issue and respond to it? What qualifies as a legitimate response?

Are we permitted to withhold payment of taxes until the grievance is redressed or is it until the petition is responded to (even if we don't like the response)?

Has anyone tried the idea that we may withhold payment of taxes until a petition is responded to? Was a letter sent to the IRS informing them that payment of taxes is withheld until a response to the petition of redress of grievances is received thereby inviting the IRS to begin prosecution proceedings?

If the matter were taken to criminal court it would ensure a government response and a decision on the matter of this assertion, if the 1st amendment was used as the basis of the defendant's defense it may provide a path to higher courts through appeal. The defendant may lose the initial case, of course, but it would certainly garner some attention - and provide a course higher through appeal. Or it may cause the petition to be responded to. Or the defendant might win the case in a trial by jury, which should definitely earn publicity.

whatever is in the constitution is law until procedure is followed to eradicate it - however, the only way to eradicate it comes back to knowing you can't break the supreme law of the land/the principles, and that is where almost every tax case fails - because they think seperation of church/state is about religion, and it isn't.

The principles in the Constitution are spiritual, but are also logical and vital to our existing at all - all somebody would need to do is go to court expressing this and meaning it - not based on 'constitutional law' but THE LAW the constitutions were written from and the principles of LIFE - you can not break the law, and the government can't force you to break the law, you've got to be willing to go to prison for it - the supreme being and/or the principles of liberty and freedom have to be abided by or one is basically submitting to self destruction - of themselves as well as their government, ironically enough.

What we need is a bunch of atheists to fully understand this - and to take it to court, town hall and the state house - to demand they can not break the creator's supreme law and can not allow the government to allow these infringements in an official document on federal or state levels. Get the law and principle breaking crap removed from documents. But try getting a bunch of atheists to acknowledge a creator... it's a tough challenge. But - what if the creator is simply the principles themselves?

That's what I've been thinking, anyways. I know it sounds kinda crazy, and maybe it is just crazy and I'm wrong - I just don't know yet.

But one thing I do know for sure: Bob is not supposed to die as he will be a great help in the upcoming years for the restoring of this Constitutional Republic.

All my favorite speakers... Paul, Badnarik, Griffin... they all also cite federal constitution as being most powerful, when it isn't - that is not the most powerful document given to us - the rights our creator bestowed upon us are the most powerful, which means our state constitutions are next in line - federal could easily be brought back down to size once we get the state constitutions working as they are supposed to be.

Apologies in advance for my rambly scattered brain ways - have a good Wednesday and I'll check back as time allows.
 
Bob Schultz was supposed to speak at the Washington DC March/Rally, but instead the crowd was told he was not there because he'd begun his hunger strike - I'm not sure exactly why he did that, but it breaks my heart - please, reach out to him, tell him to end the hunger strike and to guide us through our state constitutional procedures - it's going to vary state by state, so Bob will need a lot of supporters to do the work that has to be done. He has the right idea, it just needs to be done in the right steps is all. He's a brilliant, brilliant man - but he's been trying to save this Republic for decades and I think he's just so tired now, exhausted and frustrated - we need to somehow re-inspire him, to get him to want to live for this cause, not to die for it.

Actually, that isn't accurate. He was invited to speak and initially agreed to but backed out for the following reason, and I quote: "Given the present demands on my time by WTP’s unfolding Plan to restore the Republic by holding our elected officials accountable to the Constitution under the First Amendment’s accountability clause, and the nature, facts and circumstances of the March, I find I cannot justify the expenditure of the time and energy required to participate in the March."

If the crowd was told otherwise, I was not aware of it. I was running around all day and didn't get to hear everything that was said on stage.

Also, his hunger strike does not officially start until August 11th, so there is time to try and talk him out of it. I agree with you that we need to re-inspire him.

Here is more from the email I got from him informing me of his withdrawl:

"The first step of the Plan, may be remembered in history as the day Americans began, in earnest, the moral and solemn process of holding their (servant) Government accountable to the Constitution -- under threat of withdrawal of allegiance, support and tax money.

On June 30, 2008, approximately 1200 WTP volunteers began the process of claiming and exercising their First Amendment Right of Redress for constitutional violations by formally serving a Legal Notice and Demand for Redress upon the President, the Attorney General and every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate at their local, district offices.

Demanding an official response within forty (40) days, the Notice included seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of the Constitution:
1. The Iraq invasion in violation of the war powers clauses.
2. The Federal Reserve System’s violation of the money clauses.
3. The USA Patriot Act’s violation of the privacy clauses.
4. The direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor in violation of the tax clauses.
5. The federal gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment.
6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”
7. The construction, by stealth, of a "North American Union" without constitutional authority.

Step two of the plan is about to get underway. It involves a formal request of the eleven federal judicial circuits outside the DC circuit to declare the obligation of the Government officials to respond to the Petitions and, the inherent Right of the people to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government if their elected representatives fail to respond.

Preparations are underway for step three of the Plan. To draw attention to the fact that our government officials are violating the Constitution and refuse to be held accountable I will begin a hunger fast on August 11."

I didn't ask permission to publish excerpts from this email, however I think Bob would be fine with it.
 
Last edited:
Did congress make a law infringing upon the right to petition for redress of grievances?

I don't get it. What makes you think just because there is a petition that there must be a response, rather than that you should just not have your right to petition infringed upon by a law?


If they don't respond one way or another, they are essentially disregarding the will of the people. To ignore our redress of grievance is to pretend it doesn't exist.
 
We must understand that these petitions were served NOT to get a response BUT to justify future actions as we redress these grievances ourselves. This was done by the founders just the same way. Did Sam Adams expect to get a response from the king? NO! He was just filing these to have an excuse to overthrow tyranny. Understand that for RP to respond to these would be both POINTLESS and COUNTER to the true purpose of filing these.

Remember the Declaration of Independence...

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
 
We must understand that these petitions were served NOT to get a response BUT to justify future actions as we redress these grievances ourselves. This was done by the founders just the same way. Did Sam Adams expect to get a response from the king? NO! He was just filing these to have an excuse to overthrow tyranny. Understand that for RP to respond to these would be both POINTLESS and COUNTER to the true purpose of filing these.

Remember the Declaration of Independence...

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."


An expected response is more than appropriate. I'm sure even our founders expected a response however, as you state, a lack of response gives us more than enough reason to organize an overthrow.
 
Convention show stopper!

Can the GOP delegates nominate a Presidential candidate who openly defies the Constitution?

There is a significant development unfolding that could very well become a “show stopper” for the Republicans expecting the nomination of John McCain to proceed smoothly in St. Paul at the GOP’s upcoming national convention.

Normally, convention delegates would be expected to cast their vote for McCain because he received more votes than Ron Paul or Mitt Romney during the primaries and caucuses. Beyond this, Party rules require the votes be cast for McCain.

However, the delegates are soon to face a new — and very troubling and very public conundrum:

What if there were a set of new, irrefutable facts regarding Senator McCain and Rep. Paul that would “stop the show” and bring forth the possibility of a convention upset?

These startling facts would force the delegates to question their consciences, and put each of them on the horns of a practical and deep moral dilemma that will require them to search their souls for an answer to a VERY important question, “Can I cast my vote for a man who openly defies the Constitution?”

Between now and the end of August, the delegates will learn that the voting record of John McCain puts him in the company of Alan Dershowitz, who has publicly stated that “The People have no unalienable Rights, the Constitution is merely a piece of paper and the Government should not be held accountable to the Constitution by the People.” The delegates will learn that that candidate’s voting record also puts him in the company of President Bush who was recently quoted saying, “The Constitution is just a God d***** piece of paper.

The delegates will also learn that Senator McCain has cast his Senate votes squarely in cooperation with Rep. Henry Hyde who, as Chairman of the House Committee was responsible for the passage of the Iraq Resolution on October 2-3 of 2002 (five months before the invasion).

During the Hearing, Hyde responded to committee member Ron Paul’s stirring defense of the war powers clauses of the Constitution and Paul’s opposition to the Resolution by slamming Paul and the Constitution, saying (quoting from the Hearing transcript), “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. There are things that are no longer relevant to a modern society- things that are inappropriate, anachronistic.”

On the other hand, the delegates will learn between now and August that the other candidate - Ron Paul, as a member of Congress has never cast a vote for legislation that was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that he believes the last ten words of the First Amendment guarantee the Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution.

In fact, the delegates will learn, that candidate Paul publicly declared in 2001, “[T]he right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.”

The delegates will learn that McCain: 1) violated the war powers clause of the Constitution by voting for the Iraq Resolution; 2) violated the money clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of Fiat money and the Federal Reserve System; 3) violated the privacy clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of the USA Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping and surveillance; 4) violated the tax clauses of the Constitution by voting in favor of the enhancing the federal income tax system; 5) violated the Second Amendment by voting in favor of gun controls; and 6) violated the general welfare clause of the Constitution by voting in favor of foreign aid and intervention in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

Very importantly, before the start of the convention in September, these two GOP candidates, as sitting members of the Congress of the United States, will be given a most public opportunity to declare their intentions as to their personal commitment to the Constitution.

On June 30, 2008, the People will claim and exercise their Rights under the accountability clause of the First Amendment - they will Petition the Government for Redress of constitutional torts.

Both Ron Paul and John McCain, President Bush, the Attorney General and every other member of the U.S. Congress will be served with seven comprehensive Petitions for Redress, one for each of seven violations of the Constitution by the federal Government.

Based on the recorded responses of these Presidential candidates, the delegates to the convention will learn what the candidates personally believe about the roles and constitutionally guaranteed relationship between the People and their servant Government, including what each candidate truly believes regarding the essential principles of popular sovereignty and limited government.

Per the fundamental legal principle articulated in Section 61 of the Magna Carta in 1215, and subsequently articulated in 1774 in an official Act of the first Congress and in 1789 as the Accountability clause of the First Amendment, each Petition will state a Grievance and request a formal, specific Response, within forty days - i.e., by August 8th. Each Petition for Redress contains a short series of pointed “Admit or Deny” type questions regarding U.S. law or policy. The questions are specifically designed to expose the Government’s contempt for the Constitution.

By exposing the open disdain that most of our elected leaders hold for the Constitution, the People can thus begin to resolve the conflict between the behavior of the Government and the requirements of the Constitution.

We know Ron Paul will respond. He has previously declared his position publicly that the Government is inherently obligated by the First Amendment to Respond to Petitions for Redress. Click here http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ronpaul7-17-01.htm to read Ron Paul’s statement which was read on July 17, 2001 at a Capitol Hill press conference with Bob Schulz during Bob’s hunger fast to secure Redress for the first of the seven constitutional torts currently being addressed by the Petitions for Redress, i.e., the un-constitutional enforcement of direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor.

We know it will be difficult for John McCain to respond given his largely unconstitutional voting record.

We know what the delegates ought to do. As Americans, they should place the Constitution and its essential principles above the Party and its rules. As Americans first, their loyalties should flow to their Constitution before Party.

Prayerfully, the delegates will be forced by conscience to cast their votes for the candidate who has earned the trust of the American People by living his oath to honor and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

The time is at hand when those who support the vision of the Republic and Freedom espoused by Ron Paul will be able to move that vision forward by “bootstrapping” the exercise of Petitioning for Redress into a potent campaign issue, with the potential of altering the outcome of the convention by exposing those candidates who — by their own record — are incapable of honestly swearing the Presidential Oath of Office.


http://captkarl.blogivists.com/2008/06/12/convention-show-stopper/

~~~~~~~~~



this person obviously expected Ron Paul to respond.....
 
Back
Top