Topic: Constitutional Issues
The Matter Is Pretty Clear Now; Another Bob Schulz Scam In Progress This article discusses the scam in progress behind the Continental Congress 2009by Bill Walker
(libertarian)
Monday, November 2, 2009
In a recent column I discussed the upcoming "Continental Congress 2009" which supporters have gone out of their way to say is "not a constitutional convention" as if even this were true this "congress" would have the slightest authority to change anything in this nation. Such a denial shows a clear arrogance on the part of this "congress." For the information of those supporting this "congress" they should know that all actions in the 1700’s were authorized by already existing, recognized governments, i.e., the colonial or later state legislatures, not by a bunch of private citizens getting together for a private meeting. In short, the First and Second Continental Congress and the Congress of the Articles of Confederation were all authorized by sovereign authorities with the sovereign authority to so constitute a government body.
Not so for Mr. Schulz’s "congress." And make no mistake: this is just a continuation of scheme by a man to have as many people join in illegal criminal activity by withholding federal income tax (a criminal offense). This "congress" is a sham. Clearly, its purpose will be that of Bob Schulz and not that of a free, open and completely public convention with no pre-conceived agenda. Instead, it will obviously be aimed at simply being a mouthpiece for Bob Schulz’s positions.
My earlier column was written following my attending a Bob Schulz seminar in Seattle earlier this year, one a series Mr. Schulz held across the nation promoting his "congress." In sum, my column pointed out that even then Mr. Schulz clearly had an agenda in mind for this "congress" and that did not include an Article V Convention. Mr. Schulz, I stated, obviously sees things in the First Amendment that are simply not there. I also pointed out that such a congress will be useful in helping to bring about an Article V Convention because as I wrote in my earlier column, "Schulz’s "Continental Congress 2009" will prove not only the idea of gathering people in a convention to discuss and propose solutions to national problems is acceptable to a large number of people including those opposed to an Article V Convention, but it will also prove such a convention is a feasible proposition. In short, Bob Schulz will prove finally, especially to those opposed to an Article V Convention but who are backing Schulz’s "Continental Congress 2009," that a convention works."
A free, open convention such as this "congress" might be useful if its outcome were not already rigged. People, free to express themselves and to examine all possibilities and look at all facts, might actually come to useful conclusions unlike those stated in the "agenda of the congress" just released by Mr. Schulz as well as his "vision statement." These documents clearly show there is already a plan in place to have this "congress" rubberstamp a pre-conceived agenda. This allegation is proven simply by reading the end pages of the "agenda" clearly showing an already determined result, an Articles of Association, planned for release by the "congress." What happens if the "congress" in free and open debate instead suggests publicly supporting a call for an Article V Convention or some other action or takes no action whatsoever?
In contrast to this to this pre-conceived plan, consider the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Many of the states and delegates submitted so-called plans to the convention. But nowhere is there a document showing that before the convention met, the Constitution had already been written and the course of the convention already determined. This is obviously not the case with Bob Schulz’s "congress." Let us not forget this "congress" was planned and created in secret meetings not open to the public.
Let us examine this so-called agenda for a couple of points. The first point of the agenda states, "The Constitution cannot defend itself and is not a menu." This is true, Americans must defend our Constitution. However, given the Bob Schulz is on public record as opposing obeying the Constitution and calling an Article V Convention when mandated by Article V to do so it is clear he believes the Constitution is a menu allowing the government to pick and choose what will and will not be obeyed. Mr. Schulz is obviously therefore a constitutional hypocrite. A further point: how can delegates from "49 states" have written this agenda when they haven’t even met yet?
Another point about this "congress." I have tried several times to contact so-called "delegates" to this "congress" and ask them about an Article V Convention and urge them to bring the matter to the attention of this "congress". No doubt, others have also tried other issues. All delegates have ignored any effort to be contacted regarding a convention. How can these "delegates" be said to represent the people when they will not even respond to them? In this, they are no different than the members of Congress so it should be no surprise to them when they are treated the same by the real Congress that they treat others.
If there is any question this is simply a continuation by Bob Schulz to further his own agenda which has included several court cases which he has lost and sanctions by the federal courts regarding fraudulent income tax avoidance schemes designed to see people don’t pay their income tax, it is eliminated by the fourth statement in the agenda which states, "CC 2009 is the appropriate next step in a 14-year process by the free People to hold the STATE AND FEDERAL elected officials accountable to the federal Constitution." The only way this statement can be true is if one realizes Bob Schulz has been on this trail for 14 years of urging people to not pay their income tax and now wishes to drag others along with him. It should be noted both the "We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and the We The People Congress", the umbrella group sponsoring this "congress" were named as groups sponsoring illegal tax avoidance schemes in a federal court case in which Schulz was ordered to stop any further such activity.
As noted in my other column, Bob Schulz has a fixation on the First Amendment. Despite the fact, the courts have rejected his opinions about the First Amendment; Bob Schulz will not be deterred. It is clear the violations he speaks of are violations regarding his interpretation of the First Amendment. For example, there is not one public record Bob Schulz has ever produced showing violation of First Amendment by any government official. Indeed, in his public presentations, Schulz proves this by the fact he was allowed to file petitions in court and to meet with public officials. That is all the First Amendment mandates: the right to petition the government and it clear by Schulz’ own admission, he has never been denied that right. If there were, he would shout from the rooftops waiving the public document as proof. On the other hand, the violation by the government in refusing to obey the Constitution regarding an Article V Convention call is irrefutable by simple examination of public record and that public record readily available for examination on our website, www.foavc.org.
Schulz then states the people, having "exhausted their administrative and judicial remedies...now wish to exhaust their constitutional remedies." He also states the "congress" wishes "to focus on facts, avoiding opinions" and "focus on violations of the Constitution." Fine. Where in this 22 page pre-conceived agenda is one word about the violation of Article V? Why, given that the states have submitted 750 applications many of which address the very issues Schulz grieves about, are these facts of public record not even permitted one moment of public discussion by these so-called delegates of the people? Why do these so-called delegates run from a convention to the point they will not even discuss it?
Why for example on page 7 of this agenda where the 16th Amendment is discussed as a subject of the "congress" is it not mentioned that public record shows 39 states have requested an amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment? It would seem logical that if the "congress" is going to discuss the "facts" about the 16th Amendment that a sufficient number of applications exist not only to cause a convention call on this issue alone but that there is sufficient state support to ratify the amendment. As this would eliminate the issue as well as being the solution to Bob Schulz’s 14-year campaign, it would seem such discussion would be obligatory. Yet, Bob Schulz is on public record as opposing repealing the 16th Amendment via an Article V Convention. Hardly a consistent position by Mr. Schulz or for a "congress" whose slogan is "defend, NOT amend" the Constitution. In sum, it is obvious, it clear this "congress" is not about finding actual solutions to issues, such as repeal of the 16th Amendment but about promoting the ego of a single man who believes it must be done his way or we have "exhausted" our constitutional options.
As my other column indicated, I have heard Bob Schulz speak in glowing terms about the lawsuits he filed. He glided by the fact he also has been in court as a defendant over income tax evasion schemes but he spent hours regaling the audience about his court history, which can be summed up as achieving nothing. He lost everytime he went to court. On this historic record, we are to pin our hopes and "exhaust" our constitutional remedies. How can Schulz state this when an Article V Convention has not even been tried? Are we to assume if this "congress" does not get the public support it craves then we the people have "exhausted" our constitutional remedies? Does that mean this fate of this nation hangs on whether or not Bob Schulz’s "congress" rubberstamps his already demonstrated failure?
Hardly. Eventually after all these other efforts have failed—and they will fail, then a famous quote by a fictional character Sherlock Holmes will provide the answer. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." One by one these impossible solutions, the Tea Parties, the Tenth Amendment movement and now this "Continental Congress 2009" have come forth as solutions to legitimate national problems, proven false and thus been eliminated as impossible solutions to those problems. However improbable it may be in the minds of those who conceived them, the only answer to constitutional violations by the government is to use the Constitution to solve them and that means an Article V Convention. It is an irrefutable and simple truth: the only documented constitutional violation by the government publicly and officially acknowledged by them is their refusal to call an Article V Convention. The government has never officially or publicly acknowledged any other violation and while those supporters of these violations may shout to the rooftops, the fact is when called on to do so, they cannot produce documented, concrete proof to prove their claims. If this so-called "congress" is not going to discuss that truth, then they are meaningless.
Bob Schulz’s pre-conceived "congress" should be rejected out of hand as dangerous, possibly criminal and certainly not offering any real viable solution for the problems of this nation. Clearly, its agenda has already been decided beforehand. Its slogan clearly shows it has no intention of using the tools within the Constitution designed and intended to resolve such problems and therefore has rejected the Constitution out of hand. These reasons alone are enough to reject this "congress" as nothing more than it is—a bunch of private citizens getting together to vent their problems led by a false prophet.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 16 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Bill Walker only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bill Walker is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-11-03 06:11:36
Bravo! An excellent example of critical and necessary thinking that reveals the hypocrisy and idiocy of some people that profess their respect for the Constitution, but in their thinking and behaviors show just the opposite.
Posted By: Kevin Patrick
Date: 2009-11-03 16:19:37
Mr. Walker,
I am a Delegate from WV to the CC2009, and I can honestly say that you have never tried to contact me;or at least, you have failed in doing so. I invite you to contact me, I would enjoy talking to you.
This is not an Article V Con-Con, but a page from the book of our Founders, a Continental Congress. The goal is not to amend nor alter the current US Constitution, as an Article V Constitutional Convention would.
Your article is incredibly biased, as you use such terms as "tax evasion" as oppose to "tax protestor." Our Founders believed we have the right to withhold our taxes until our Grievances are redressed.
Again, I invite you to contact me.
In Liberty, ---Kevin Patrick kevinpatrick.jr@gmail.com
You have not tried to contact me either. I am open to discuss these issues you have accused this Congress of. Please give me a call by emailing me and I will gladly forward my phone number.
Might you be greived over not being chosen for this great event? We do expect peoplle like you to disagree. After all, our founding fathers suffered many critics also, but they still won, didn't they?
Is this a joke? This column is filled with obnoxious and misleading statements and claims as well as mistatements of history and literature (the author should check his/her Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quotes).
I only realized this was not a joke with the "discarding all the improbabilities (that we know about) leaves the obvious". It's really sad....
That the writer has a bone to pique with Bob is more than obvious, and may I say simply that the "courts" saying something is true, isn't the determinant as to whether it really is.
The CC 2009 is just exactly like the first Congress'...a buch of individuals who really do care. They're trying to make a difference. So what would provoke someone to waste so much time on his/her column to vent his/her anger at Bob? Is there a paycheck involved?
Posted By: Lisa Armellino
Date: 2009-11-03 17:07:03
Hi Bill,
I am an alternate from Pennsylvania. Although I'm not sure you have tried to contact alternates, I have never received any communications from you. Do you have my e-mail address correct? lisaarmellino@gmail.com
I find that most of your article does not ring true to me. The We the People Foundation has been submitting redress of grievances since 2002 with no responses whatsoever. The next step we are taking is a Continental Congress (not a Constitutional Convention, which itself is very different because it physically changes the Constitution) to accomplish a plan for how a mass action of people will address the grievances, rather than the government being unresponsive.
I'm curious, how many delegates have you tried to contact?
Posted By: bernard b carman
Date: 2009-11-03 17:23:53
Bill Walker, you are completely off base and inaccurate in just about every point.
Do you know anything about either the past or recent history of the Accountability Clause? Do you know anything about the petitions for redress of grievances which have been filed for various violations of the Constitution by the US Federal Government?
If you think the We the People Foundation & Congress is some kind of scam, or ponzi income tax protest scheme, you should consider studying up!
This "congress" (as you continue to refer to it in quotes) is merely an attempt to use the example of the Colonists who were being oppressed by the British Crown at the time, after repeated petitions for redress of grievances, also in according to English law (Magna Carta), were met with repeated injury, that they decided to hold Continental Congresses to deliberate over what to do about the encroachment of tyranny.
I would be happy to help explain to you the nature of the situation. I'm in a bit of haste right now, but please feel free to email me.
I've been a libertarian for some time now and i've been following Bob Schultz' efforts for the last ~9 years. I had my name in the hat for NC CC2009 delegation, but didn't make it.
My criticism in the plan for holding the CC2009 is that there are not yet enough Americans who know and understand the full meaning of the Accountability Clause, and therefore i feel the congress is premature. Also, the process for voting on these delegates was far too cumbersome.
But to call these efforts a scam is completely inaccurate.
I also wonder why this website only includes a "thumbs up" feedback possibility for this article. The webmaster might want to look into using Range/Score Voting so that folks can rate/score an article -- it's a much better method of gathering feedback, that is if one really wants feedback.
Personal attacks on Bob Schultz aside, what might Mr Walkers solution be? Simply put, what do a freedom loving people do next? It sounds like the point of this Congress is to come up with ideas...are you against this for some reason? What is the proper answer to corruption? Attacking people who are trying to DO SOMETHING, even if their destiny is to fail, seems like it is certainly not the answer.
I am another Delegate from the 2009 Continental Congress from Ohio whom you never bothered to contact. I love my country, believe in my constitution and take a stand to defend her. It takes guts, love of country and patriotism to stand for something everyone enjoys the benefits of and scoffs at when it comes to defending her. At least the Delegates are trying to make a difference rather than sit back and scoff at those who do nothing. You may contact me anytime with what your concerns are I would be happy to listen.
You never contacted me either,i'm one of the delegates for missouri,and a state coordinator. Perhaps we should be writing about truth in journalism,but I have serious doubts if you would understand what that means,you obviously don't understand the difference between defending the Constitution and amending it.
Posted By: Frank W. Szabo
Date: 2009-11-03 19:48:46
Well, Mr. Walker, it seems that you not only have not done your homework, but have also not made the attempted communications you portray in your diatribe. A written apology is in order.
Sigh. Yet another delegate to CC2009 who hasn't been contacted.
You seem to focus on the tax issue. Had you noticed, you would have seen that there will be 11 days of meetings with more than 11 constitutional topics.
fie on thee!
To those of you who have read the above article, I encourage you to go http://www.CC2009.us and check out our agenda! So what if one person proposed it. WE delegates have had numerous opportunities to give our input!
I'm Tim Hobbs, the first delegate from the state of Alabama. You certainly have not tried to contact me. Feel free to do so. My contact information is easy to find on the www.givemeliberty.org web site when you click on my state. I'd be more than glad to tell you all the ways that you are wrong in how you have asserted yourself on this subject, both in content and character.
To my knowledge, you have made no attempt to contact me, a Colorado Delegate for the Continental Congress 2009. The gross misrepresentations in your article illustrate a willingness on your part to be a false witness and provocateur. Mr. Schulz is but one delegate to CC2009 and represents only one vote. All delegates have been invited to present their ideas for an agenda. You only mention the one put forth by one delegate. The agenda and any articles will be established by all of the delegates participating in a democratic process. This Continental Congress will be run under the rules approved by the vote of the delegates as presented by a professional parliamentarian. The plan of action to be born out of this congress is yet to be determined and will be the result of the deliberations and vote of all of the delegates. Therefore, your implications are frivolous and capricious.
You are apparently in favor of the unconstitutional direct non-apportioned tax on labor and the police state that has enslaved the American people via the IRS. I suppose you are also in favor of the deficit spending that is mortgaging the lives of our children and their children. For the record, the biggest tax protestors that I know of were our founding fathers and they were only being taxed 12%. Prior to the unconstitutional Federal Reserve that pirated away our right to coin money, we had no personal income tax and our government operated without it for about 137 years. Now, the vast majority of the money being stolen from the American people is going into the pockets of private banksters that have successfully manipulated all 3 branches of our government and control all of our major media outlets. It is time that the American people admit that we have become addicted to being lied to. We've been hoodwinked and now that people are waking up to the truth, and making an honest effort to stop the Marxist/globalist takeover of our republic, we are blasted by the likes of you, who appears to prefer suffering under tyranny.
Do you not recognize the immense danger of a Constitutional Convention given the existing corrupt political environment?
Are you suggesting that the grievances petitioned by We The People Foundation are not valid violations of the Constitution? Have you read them?
Are you aware that a corrupt judiciary has failed to demand that the government respond to the properly served 1st Amendment petitions for redress of grievance pursuant to Article 61 of the Magna Charta which was the obvious intent of the founding fathers?
Are you aware that our constitutional republic is based upon a 2 law system with the sovereign power possessed by the people, under whom the constitution was created as a limited trust agreement granting restricted rights to elected officials making up the branches of government? Do you not acknowledge that all 3 branches of this Federal Government are now and have been for many years operating outside the confines of our constitution? Have the usurpations not established a long train of abuses? Has this government not circumvented the constitution and tyrannically instituted a one law system by way of duress whereby they have put themselves in the position of a god and the people as serfs?
I believe King George would argue with your statement about who was the sovereign in 1774. It wasn’t until the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that the people declared their sovereignty under the laws of nature and nature’s God.
It also appears that you believe it would be wise to have the very elected officials that have been ignoring the petitions for redress be the ones to hold a Continental Congress, thus they could hold themselves accountable. Do you have a fox guarding your hen house?
Mr. Schulz, who I hold in high esteem for his efforts to seek a peaceful and constitutional remedy, has simply asked one question: "What is the best next step for a free people to do?" We The People Foundation has for the past 14 years, followed the guidelines of the Accountability Clause of the 1st Amendment. Now, given that the petitions for redress of grievances have been ignored and the long train of abuses have continued, We The People are following the lead of our founding fathers. They expected the people to defend the constitution and the methods they understood were obvious to them as they were familiar with the Magna Charta. So, delegates from the several states are coming together to discuss a peaceful plan of action that will facilitate the transfer of power from the usurping government back to the People where it was always supposed to be.
So where is your loyalty? With the federal god or We The People? Given your unjustified attack on, not just Bob Schulz, but all of the duly elected delegates and the many volunteers , including a couple dozen liberty groups across this nation that have come together in this joint effort, puts you on the side of the federal god.
It sounds to me like you have a problem with any movement that does not include an article V convention. Many of the constitutional organizations are not in support of an article V convention because they see the danger in amending the constitution. Sorry if your Friends of the Article V Convention organization is offended that many of us are not in favor of the Constitutional Convention. You are lying about not being able to contact the delegates and many other things. Bashing a group who is trying to do a good thing just because they do not support your foavc.org group is wrong! Beware Article V - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za8_pdJ1dPo&feature=related
You have not attempted to contact me - in any way, but feel free to do so.
The delegates to this Continental Congress do not wish to resort to an Article V Constitutional Convention because the danger of doing so will allow the current Constitution to be obliterated, with a replacement being dedicated to an even more liberal agenda (like yours) that will replace our republic with a mob rule (democracy).
I have been a member of the LP for many years, but if they reward you with a note of approval, I shall immediately resign from that organization.
Per the request of some of you Mr. Thiessen contacted me regarding this article. He asked me to back up my comments. I have sent references to official government records as well as posted Internet links. He is now considering these and studying them. I believe they will past muster.
Once I have heard from him, and I have no doubt he will contact me as to the outcome of your requests, I will then respond, as is my habit, to each and every comment made above with individual responses. These may be a few days in coming due to my employment commitments, but they will be made.
I would however make one overall comment now. Many of you have said you are delegates to this "congress." I assume you ran campaigns for these offices. That would mean at the minumum some kind of public presence. One would expect therefore that Mr. Schulz if he were interested, would have provided links on his website to your sites or at least email addresses. The few that I have found of candidates have been at the end of various blog comments in numerous blogs scatted across the Internet. Some have proved not valid such as Orly Taitz for example who, while the link went to her page, it stated the link in question not longer existed.
My point is this: you've not put out the information so far as I can determine of how to contact you and those that I did find when I did contact them via email ignored me. I keep all my sent emails. If I had to I can go back, find them and prove that I did send emails.
So why didn't Schulz who obviously has the national page in this publish your names and so forth on his page as you filed so that people could contact you and discuss issues? Don't bother answering me; ask him the question.
Secondly, Mr. Schulz is not just a single delegate. He is raising the money for this event meaning he controls it financially. If he were strictly on the level he would have divorced himself entirely from the organizational and financial end of this long ago and turned it over to a neutral party of individuals such as a legal trust for example and had them administer this thus removing any question of propriety. He also heads the administration and staff that is organizing this event. In short, he controls every behind the scenes aspect of this "congress." This has been admitted on his website.
Given these facts of actual control of the entire process, saying to me he is a single delegate and no more is like trying to tell me Obama is a conservative.
First of all Mr. Thiessen has contacted me and as should be obvious to all, has approved my article with some modifications in it. Specifically he asked that I outline in further detail my original column I wrote in Nolan Chart about Bob Schulz and this "congress", repair the link to that article and provide a link to a new source which discusses the prosecution of Bob Schulz for income tax avoidance schemes in 2007. All of this has been done and the article is now complete.
As Mr. Thiessen has been satisfied, I will now individually respond over the next few days to all comments made. Hopefully those who made them will read them.
First, Mr. Patrick.
I have sent you an email regarding a request for action at the CC2009. I would hope you would respond. As to your statement that this "congress" is not an "Article V Con-Con" I would appreciate it if you be accurate. To be an effective delegate to anything requires accuracy and Article V clearly states a convention can only propose amendments to our present Constitution. As the term "con-con" refers to a constitutional convention meaning it has the power to write a new Constitution, and Article V specifically forbids this, you are inaccurate in your term.
Mr. Schulz is not a "tax protestor" as you put it. He is a conviced income tax avoidance scammer. The organization that is sponsoring this "congress" has been cited as a organization used to promote such avoidance schemes. Indeed, and you should carefully consider this part Mr. Patrick, it is entirely possible that if you, as a delegate, go along with, participate in or otherwise involve yourself in any fashion with any idea of withholding income tax given the conviction of Mr. Schulz you could end up facing a contempt citation from a federal judge or criminal charges levied against you by the IRS. For your information that can up to five years in a federal prison for each count.
However if you discuss repeal of the 16th Amendment, a balanced budget amendment, an initiative, referendum, recall amendment to cite examples of applications by the states for an Article V Convention and work to resolve issues surrounding a convention with concrete proposals to Congress, the real congress, then the government can't touch you. Moreover, as I have observed, like it or not, your "congress" serves as proof a convention can be held, organized and operated. All you gotta do is simply suggest as solution what you've already done in action.
Sir, with all due respect, you fail to provide in your message any method whereby I or anyone else can contact you. You did not leave an email address nor phone number so I cannot contact you.
As to my grief over not be chosen. You are mistaken. I did not seek the office of delegate. I did attend a meeting in Seattle in order to inform Mr. Schulz of that what had for years been ignored and denied by him: the mandate of an Article V Convention. I can only say that I wish I had a camera to record his expression when he was informed all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention. It was pure shock. He may have been shocked but I know for a fact he was already aware of this, that the states had long since addressed the issue of government excess by use of the Constitution and its required actions of Article V.
It was clear from that meeting Mr. Schulz had an agenda already planned which he now has revealed and that any premise that this "congress" would anything but a rubberstamp to further continue his tax avoidance schemes of which he has been convicted, was an illusion. If you want to listen to the meeting, there is a link I can send you to hear it.
I suggest instead of risking criminal prosecution as I have pointed out in the above comment, you as a delegate spend your time seriously addressing the fact the states have applied for a convention, that many of applications address the issues raised at this "congress" and that unlike your "congress" which will not accomplish a thing, an Article V Convention can actually solve the problems you wish to address. You should, as I have said, be dealing with the "how" a convention is held and "why" Congress has the right to veto the Constitution rather than just wasting time coming up with suggesting 8-15 million Americans violate federal income tax law. And by the way, as I noted in my earlier column, a single IRS agent sitting at a single computer can, given court orders, seize the assets of that many Americans with a single mouse click. All they gotta do is put a lien on all property and income. Not exactly a tough job.
First of all Mr. Hess, I did check out my quotes on Sherlock Holmes and the quote is accurate.
As to misstatements of history as you do not specify to what you refer, I can only assume you are referring to Bob Schulz. I believe the New York Times article discussing his conviction for income tax avoidance schemes and the fact that the We The People Congress was cited as such a group promoting such schemes by the federal judge, answers any issue of inaccurate history.
If you wish to argue with the federal judge and present your theory to him that whatever the courts say isn't the determinant as to whether it is really [true] and thus you challenge his assigned right to do so, I'm sure he will be happy to give you time in jail under a contempt citation to think things out. Please let me how that goes.
No, there is no paycheck involved Barry. Mr. Schulz is, among other things, a constitutional hypocrite. He advocates the Constitution be obeyed then opposes the government obeying it by opposing an Article V Convention which is now mandated by the Constitution to be called. He has presented public information in a public meeting I attended clearly showing he already had in mind a conclusion and result of this Congress SIX MONTHS before any delegate was even elected. His agenda clearly shows my statement to be true as it lays out a conclusion.
I just feel the American people as well as the delegates deserve to know the truth about Mr. Schulz, his plans, his background, his objectives and the fact that he has rejected a solution to his issue of the 16th Amendment meaning he has rejected the Constitution as a solution to issues he has raised. Instead, he has come up with his own interpretation of one part of the Constitution, smoothly convinved everyone his interpretation is the correct one and then complained mightily when the system established by the Constitution to resolve such questions doesn't happen to agree with him.
I have sent you an email with a request an Article V Convention be addressed at this "congress." While you may feel my article does not "ring true" it true. Mr. Schulz is a convicted income tax avoidance scam artist. The fact is that you misplace the fact you submit a petition with an obligation of the government to respond favorably to it. Mr. Schulz is clearly responsible for this misinterpretation as he has made a living on it for the past 14 years.
If I am incorrect then it behooves you and everyone else so commenting to provide proof of where and how. I see no links in your comment, no reference to any facts, court orders, public record and so forth that defeat or otherwise disprove me. Only your opinion and against public record that simply isn't good enough. As to the purpose of the convention, despite your words, it is obvious the agenda of the convention will be to attempt another Bob Schulz income tax avoidance scam and nothing else.
As to addressing your grievances, the Constitution, beyond allowing for elections, has a method to redress them: an Article V Convention. Why not your effort into that instead of putting your time into Bob Schulz and a "congress" that has no power to do anything.
To answer your first question, yes I am familiar with the so-called "accountablity clause" which is a misnomer of course. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says Congress or anything else in the Constitution is accountable. That can be found elsewhere.
According to Wikipedia,
The right to petition the government has been interpreted as extending to petitions of all three branches: the Congress, the executive and the judiciary. The Supreme Court has interpreted "redress of grievances" broadly; thus, it is possible for one to request the government to exercise its powers in furtherance of the general public good. However, a few times Congress has directly limited the right to petition. During the 1790s, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, punishing opponents of the Federalist Party; the Supreme Court never ruled on the matter. In 1835 the House of Representatives adopted the "Gag Rule," barring abolitionist petitions calling for the end of slavery. The Supreme Court did not hear a case related to the rule, which was in any event abolished in 1844. During World War I, individuals petitioning for the repeal of sedition and espionage laws (see above) were punished; again, the Supreme Court did not rule on the matter.
The right of assembly was originally closely tied to the right to petition. One significant case involving the two rights was United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S.542 (1875). There, the Supreme Court held that citizens may "assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances." Essentially, it was held that the right to assemble was secondary, while the right to petition was primary. Later cases, however, have expanded the meaning of the right to assembly. Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S.496 (1939), for instance, refers to the right to assemble for the "communication of views on national questions" and for "disseminating information."
Further, in another article it states:
While the prohibition of abridgement of the right to petition originally referred only to the federal legislature (the Congress) and courts, the incorporation doctrine later expanded the protection of the right to its current scope, over all state and federal courts and legislatures and the executive branches of the state[8] and federal governments. The right to petition includes under its umbrella the right to sue the government,[9] and the right of individuals, groups, and possibly corporations[10] to lobby the government.
In sum, your complain basically is your lobbying efforts aren't that effective. That is all the courts have held the clause means, the right to petition, not the obligation to the government to respond.
Next point. Your own website at the bottom of your comment leads to a clear reference of the We The People Congress, a group clearly identified as a income tax scam organization in the article above. So much for that proof.
Next point. We are not living under the colonial days laws. We live under the Constitution. It has an Article V Convention in it to take care of such grievances and unlike the First Amendment the Constitution specifies the government shall call a convention. The applications are after all petitions for redress, just a different kind of petition.
You provide no email address in your comment but I will look for one in your links. If I find it, I will send you an email.
It is not a "personal" attack to present public record regarding the conviction of Mr. Schulz for violating federal income tax law.
Mr. Crain you would have to oblivious not to realize what I say we must do. Force Congress to call an Article V Convention as mandated by Article V of the Constitution. Mr. Schulz is not trying to DO SOMETHING. He is proposing income tax be withheld as a protest and all that's going to get is a bunch of people thrown in jail along with Schulz. That is not solving the problem.
Holding a convention and proposing and ratifying amendments intended and designed to deal with the problems of this nation is the only solution both from a point of logic and the Constitution. It provides no other solution other than election and that has already been tried.
Yes Mr. Nolan is aware I am writing this material. It has been reviewed by Mr. Thiessen. Further, it was at the insistance him that I put in the New York Times link.
As to your quote, please let me know how by petitioning a government you will bring about a solution. Of course Schulz will have you agreeing to hold back your income tax and then you can protest from a jail cell as I noted in an earlier comment.
The simple fact is the only viable constitutional response to the issues you present is an Article V Convention. As to you not meeting yet, it doesn't matter. The result, as the agenda shows, has already been determined and when your own evidence proves my statement, no other comment is needed. The agenda clearly shows a conclusion, the articles of association already planned. How can you seriously suggest I can't conclude the obvious: that a pre-planned result for the "congress" is already planned.
I'll be real interested to see what happens if there is any other result but knowing Bob Schulz I can already tell you--your congress will be coming out asking people to withhold income tax---a federal crime.
And finally, I'm a conservative. The Nolan Chart test put me as a libertarian but that was because of the questions asked.
You did not leave an email address that I can contact you by. As to the delegates making a difference, you delude yourself if you think meeting with Bob Schulz in charge is going to make a difference. Indeed the only thing that make happen is you and a lot of other people landing in jail.
My concerns are best addressed by an Article V Convention and if you truly love your nation as you say and your constitution, then you have no choice but to support the convention as mandated by Article V. If you bother going to our site at www.foavc.org and read the 750 applications and the federal lawsuits, you'll see we've done a lot.
I understand this Mr. Herron. You say you want to "defend" the Constitution. I assume therefore you want to preserve whatever is in it. Article V is in it sir and to have the slogan "defend not amend" doesn't even make sense. How can you "defend" something by not obeying it? Article V calls for a convention. The public record shows the states have applied. Therefore as a "defender" you should support, not oppose amendment when and as it is required.
As to the journalism part--You've given opinion but no facts. Indeed, none of the respondants have given a single fact that refutes one statement made. Oh, yes they have disagreed with those statements but that is not refuting them, that is, proving them to be false. I've stated the umbrella group sponsoring this is an income tax avoidance organization and public record backs me up. Not one denial from anyone that I'm wrong or any proof to the contrary.
Journalism? The first rule is accuracy Mr. Herron and unless you've got documented proof, it looks like I'm pretty accurate.
You'll receive no apology for me for stating the facts. I have made attempts to contact delegates and been ignored. And while you may state I have not stated the facts, the fact is you don't prove I've done so by presenting facts which refute my statements.
Actually, if you study the matter more carefully regarding your agenda, you'll see only a few constitutional issues are mentioned, 2nd Amendment, 16th Amendment for example. Most are actually political questions such as actions of the government not related to the constitution.
By the way I'm going to use your letter to point out what should be an obvious point. Not one of these letter protestors stated they would change or alter the agenda published. Not one has said they would add anything to it. In short, it appears, despite their protests, they fully intend to simply go along with Bob Schulz.
And by the way, DELEGATES should not be the one putting things into the agenda--it should be "people we represent" have had many opportunities to be things in the agenda.
As to staying with income tax, the reason I did that was because I know what is at the heart of this "congress" a tax avoidance scheme and nothing more.
Please don't take me for me idiot Mr. Dodd when you try to state Mr. Schulz is only one delegate. He's the brains, the organizer and the money man behind all of this. He controls and pays for the staff as well as controlling the media outlet of the congress. He has a record of saying this "congress" will be an open public record then closing it down. I wouldn't be surprised if he does the same thing at the "congress" if it doesn't go exactly as he plans.
I am no implicating anything. I'm stating that Bob Schulz had an obvious conclusion in mind six months ago when he was in Seattle. He released material indicating so and has again expressed a pre-conceived result of the congress before it even meets. That much anyone can read for himself.
As to income tax, you make assumptions that you provide no facts for. Where, for example, did you get the income tax records of the Founders? You make statements but provide no documented facts to back them.
As to the "dangers" of a convention. You're holding a convention. Call it what you want but you propose to make political changes in our form of government. Are you a danger? And you are holding it sponsored by a documented corrupt person, that is one who has been convicted of such corruption.
Are the petitions of grievances made by the We the People Foundation invalid? Most likely yes. I've already read Mr. Schulz's legal cases in the past and his "evidence" and frankly it is bogus. So no, I don't believe the grievances to be legitimate. Contrast this to the fact the public record PROVES Article V has been violated and even the government has admitted this officially and for the public record. Show me where the government has done so in case of Schulz. And while we're at it, please show me one issue to be discussed that is NOT instigated by Bob Schulz.
For your information Mr. Dodd the Magna Charta was a document written in England. It is a document which has no legal effect in America. American courts are no bound to an English legal document than an English court might be to a law made in France unless it is so bound by treaty. And that was removed from America by the Treaty of Paris.
I have no idea what you mean by a "2 law system." I think you mean the federalist system of government, that is state and federal laws but my point is you are obviously ignorant of the correct terms. This indicates you are ignorant of what these terms mean. It is because of this ignorance that this "congress" is not and will not be taken seriously by anyone. And please, stop trying to copy the Declaration of Independence in your language especially when, unlike that document, you don't itemize out these abuses.
And again to correct your inaccurate statement. I said the "1700's" not 1774 in my article. These inaccuracies are what proves you people don't know your subject. You just slap together things in order to reach the conclusion you've already arrived at.
As to officials holding a convention. You obviously don't know the Constitution. It prevents such an event by specific language of Article I, Section 6, Clause 2. I'll let you look it up.
All that Mr. Schulz has done in the last 14 years is scam people that they don't have to pay income tax. Now you discuss a "peaceful plan of action that will facilitate the transfer of power" from the government to the people. I suggest this in all seriousness. Be very careful here. You are very close to advocating the overthrow of the constitutional form of government and that is a crime.
My loyality is not with the organization We The People. You are a small group elected by a few hundred participants across the nation. You do not speak for or represent the people of the United States and you will soon learn these people are neither fooled nor interested in your "congress" and it will fade quickly away in memory as the real plan of Bob Schulz is revealed. I wouldn't even be surprised if delegates to that "congress" leave in disqust before it is over.
No, I don't have a problem with organizations that don't support an Article V. What I do have is a problem with organizations that obviously don't support the Constitution by supporting the government disobeying it. Article V is a constitutional mandate and if you say you support the Constitution, then you support it all or you are a constitutional hypocrite, one only supports those parts of the Constitution they favor and opposes the rest.
I have not lied about trying to contact delegates.
As to your John Birch Society You Tube video, I suggest all interested also take the time to view our response videos to that video and to read our FAQ pages especially the fact that the "Burger" letter referred to is a phoney created most likely by the JBS itself.
In short, take time to look at all the documented facts and then make up your mind. And the most important fact is this: the Constitution must be obeyed. The states have applied. The Constitution demands a convention. Ms. Jefferies is now on public record oppposing obeying the Constitution and this is the type of delegate elected to this "congress" that is going to "defend" the Constitution.
A better plan is to amend the Constitution via an Article V Convention using the proposals made by the states to bring the federal government into line as they have been attempting to do since at least 1832. Mr. Schulz has been approached numerous times regarding this. He has rejected the Constitution as a means of solving these problems except for those parts he uses to advance his own political agenda of income tax avoidance scheme. That is the kind of patriot he is.
As to how FOAVC is proceeding, we are letting people know about the violation of the Constitution by the government, that it is a documented fact and the government has admitted they have violated federal criminal law in doing so. We are then asking them to bring pressure on Congress to call a convention as they are required to do.
You've given me no email address so I cannot contact you. I don't even have your last name.
I have no idea who or what LP is so don't resign from them on my account.
As to the Article V Convention fears you mention. They are bogus. I assume those who make objections like yours have actually read Article V. That part of the Constitution clearly limits a convention to proposing amendments to our present constitution and nothing more. Therefore your fears are groundless and moreover you've provided no proof of them. Merely allegations which I've eliminated by a simple quote of public record.
I was a delegate for the CC2009. Proud to say I'm not anymore. They Continental Congress did not say or do anything they claimed to try to do so I left for personal and religious beliefs. You may contact me at anytime.
The above comment by Ms. Connell pretty well proves my point. But I will make a few comments. Others have also contacted me saying the same thing.
1. If one reads the "resolutions" officially passed by the "congress" you'll see at the top of the list is withholding income tax, a criminal offense. Surprise, Surprise!
2. If the figures are correct supplied by the "congress" are correct, there were 153 delegates that started this "congress". It ended up with 113. That's about 25% that left early as admitted by the "congress."
3. The texts of the "resolutions" are still being worked on, days after the "congress" left town. Why have they not been published as they should have been available immediately. I'll tell you why because Bob Schulz is editing them for his own purposes.
4. I hate to say I told you so, but.....
5. Except for this article and one more I intend to write along with a single article in Examiner.com, so far as my Google search can determine, there is not one other article on the Internet written by an OUTSIDE source about the "congress." I think this proves it failed.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
