WTP "Historic Lawsuit" Dismissed by DC Circuit

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

I think we are getting a bit far a field on this folks.

Unless I have badly misread the original filing, this whole faraggo was about Schulz claiming that his “right to petition” had been denied him. Schulz make one true statement in his entire presentation towit; “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”, and then proceeds to build the rest of his specious argument from there.
Schulz as quoted by the court wrote:Plaintiffs contend that the First Amendment guarantees a citizen's right to receive a government response to or official consideration of a petition for redress of grievances.
As near as I can ascertain from reading that piece of mind numbing drivel, Schulz has admitted that no one stopped them from inundating all and sundry with their petitions, and yet somehow his right to petition has been infringed upon.

The gist of all this is that he contends that the “right to petition” also guarantees a right to a response and that if they don’t get a response then they have a “right” to withhold their taxes.

The District court rejected the suit, quite rightly, on the basis “that the First Amendment does not provide plaintiffs with the right to receive a government response to or official consideration of their petitions”. The language is quite clear and concise as to what is there or not there. A petition, like a ringing phone, has no constitutional right to be answered. They further found that by the anti-injunction act they were precluded from enjoining the IRS from collecting taxes.

Putting it plainly, there is NO constitutional requirement, authority, or mechanism for this. All the amendment says is that you cannot be penalized for petitioning, not that you have to be paid attention to.

I think too much is being read into this, the two basic questions are: does Art I require an answer to a petition, plain reading of the amendment, and of precedent say NO, and can the IRS be enjoined from collecting lawfully due taxes, again the answer in most cases is NO.

I personally think the suit should have been bounced for failure to state a cause for which relief can be sought.

Schulz is not in this for anything other than monetary gain, so attributing too much to his great crusade is pointless.

Schulz, and every other TP who has come up with some various of this idea, has been answered time and time again, but the point is that they didn’t get the answer they wanted so they were ignored.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

The District court rejected the suit, quite rightly, on the basis “that the First Amendment does not provide plaintiffs with the right to receive a government response to or official consideration of their petitions”...
The appellate court is simply programmed to address the arguments appealed and Shultz simply parroted back the incorrect reason given by the magistrate in the district court.

Shultz should have argued on appeal:
The US Government is obligated to answer for the Federal Reserve.
Of course that would have really flown...



Regards,

David Merrill.
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5773
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Post by Demosthenes »

The interesting thing is that Bob isn't demanding that the government respond to 500+ non-questions. He's demanding that they "properly respond," a phrase that appears fives times in his 25 page complaint. Many politicians did respond to him, he just didn't like their answers.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

notorial dissent wrote:As near as I can ascertain from reading that piece of mind numbing drivel, Schulz has admitted that no one stopped them from inundating all and sundry with their petitions, and yet somehow his right to petition has been infringed upon.
Not entirely correct. Schulz also claimed that the tax investigations and collection efforts by the IRS infringed their right to petition, but the court threw that out immediately because of the anti-injunction act, so all that was left was the claim that they were entitled to an answer to their petitions.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Disilloosianed

Post by Disilloosianed »

Still no news to the faithful on the WTP sites. "Latest News" is about how it is understandable that Bin Laden bombed us (and that's from May 7th).
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

Disilloosianed wrote:Still no news to the faithful on the WTP sites. "Latest News" is about how it is understandable that Bin Laden bombed us (and that's from May 7th).
Dissillusioned?
hartley

Post by hartley »

Red Cedar PM wrote:Apparently they (and you) don't think that it would be nice to be able to sue the government.
Pretending for the moment that you weren't being sarcastic:
Actually, I do think it would be nice to be able to sue the government.

Unfortunately, the government too often claims sovereign immunity, as in this instance, and the case just gets thrown out.
Cobalt Shiva
Black Seas Commodore Designate
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:06 am
Location: Where the Grass is Green and the Girls Are Pretty

Post by Cobalt Shiva »

Disilloosianed wrote:Still no news to the faithful on the WTP sites. "Latest News" is about how it is understandable that Bin Laden bombed us (and that's from May 7th).
:shock:

YANKEE GOLF BRAVO SIERRA MIKE, OVER!
grammarian44

Post by grammarian44 »

Cobalt Shiva wrote:
Disilloosianed wrote:Still no news to the faithful on the WTP sites. "Latest News" is about how it is understandable that Bin Laden bombed us (and that's from May 7th).
:shock:

YANKEE GOLF BRAVO SIERRA MIKE, OVER!
Lately WTP seems to be more of a vehicle for thinly-veiled anti-semitism than an outlet for tax protestors.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

My vote is for hysterical ......

as in big joke on his supporters who got to pay all his bills and support him, and then will get audited, at the very least, for following his advice, and like the great treasure hunt scams of yore, he can drag this out with yet one more attempt to secure justice and so on and so forth ad nauseum, and the suckers will keep on ponying up.
Last edited by notorial dissent on Sat May 12, 2007 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

LPC wrote: Not entirely correct. Schulz also claimed that the tax investigations and collection efforts by the IRS infringed their right to petition, but the court threw that out immediately because of the anti-injunction act, so all that was left was the claim that they were entitled to an answer to their petitions.
True, I kind of lumped that in with the Anti-Injunction response.

I still feel like the gov't over reacted, should have gone with the precedent that there is no requirement for a response, that the Anti-injunction act precludes an injunction, and that there has been no relief sought other than the unavailable injunction.

There really were no other issues there. Even if Schulz had asked for definitive answers to the original petitions, I don't think the court would have had the ability to grant it, or even to say that it had already been answered previously. I do think the gov't could maybe have stated that as part of the defense, but that is just my supposition. My biggest problem is in giving this case more gravitas than it rightly deserves based on its source.
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

Did you just find that David?

Several people have already commented that the last lawsuit update was posted in October 2006.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

You've heard of multi-tasking, well, Merrill is omni-oblivious.

Helps to explain how he can be so wrong about so many things.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

notorial dissent wrote:You've heard of multi-tasking, well, Merrill is omni-oblivious.
The opposite of "multi-tasking" would be ""uni-inert."
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

Alas, If he were inert then we wouldn't be subjected to the endless drivel, unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Post by grixit »

notorial dissent wrote:You've heard of multi-tasking, well, Merrill is omni-oblivious.

Helps to explain how he can be so wrong about so many things.
An idiot-savant whose special power is even greater idiocy?
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Post by . »

whose special power is even greater idiocy?
His "special power" is posting useless links. The voices cheer him on.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

The Readers' higher power;


Little do you know that the Readers might appreciate seeing how long it takes for Bob Shultz to update the website and let everybody know about the decision.

But this insult is especially for Nikki The Dunce;

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -5359a.pdf

Take that you Twit!! Try swallowing that for factual truth - a direct link to the published decision!

I was lecturing this morning before the We the People meeting. While the fellow was updating the congregation, I even mentioned generically some news about the case etc...

Nothing. Even the people in charge knew nothing about the decision. So I waited until I was finished with my lecture, and still not a clue. So I passed a hardcopy around and people slowly started grasping that I am no part of the We the People organization; I was just the guy telling them the Appeal flopped.


Interesting...




Regards,

David Merrill.