-----Original Message-----
From: vpocv@hotmail.com
To: voiceforveterans@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:55 PM
Subject: FW: RE: *** The Right to Redress --Not "Petition" ***

 
>From: "john mccarthy" <vpocv@hotmail.com> 
>To: victoryusa@jail4judges.org 
>Subject: RE: *** The Right to Redress --Not "Petition" *** 
>Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 22:32:19 -0700 

>Greetings, 

>A pure example of the denial of the Right to seek redress for grievances is >the Feres Doctrine which has affected every single service member of the >United States Armed Forces since 1950. 

>http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id70.html 

>In this instance Congress did not make a new law; they "adopted" the Feres >Doctrine. The Supreme Court later upheld this "adoption" and THEY made it >Law of The Land. Different wording resulted in results as IF Congress had >made the Law. Pretty tricky! 

>Our founding fathers thought the Right to seek redress so important that >they placed it in the First Amendment, before the Right to bear arms!. >They did so because of the abuses of King George against his subjects under >the Crown. Talk about a priority! 

>Can you just imagine the mental terror of those who have donned their >countries uniforms after having sworn to protect and defend the >Constitution of The United States only to find out they have been stripped >of those very Rights? The Feres Doctrine takes effect the very moment of >induction into the Armed Forces of the United States. However, no is >advised and only finds out about Feres after they have suffered such >tragedies as the removal of the wrong limb because of incompetance by a >military doctor! The examples of abuse are endless. 

>Hundreds of pages of documentation now gather dust for the past four years >in the Senate Judiciary Committee who have been stonewalling proposals to >abolish the Feres Doctrine. Current members of the Supreme Court have >opined that Feres is "bad law" and that Congress has the power to abolish >it. 

>Perhaps this is one of the keys to your success re seeking the Right to >redress! 

>Please feel free to use this information and related materials located in >the left column of this page if it furthers your cause re the Right to seek >redress. 

>Bests, 
>John McCarthy 



>>From: "JAIL4Judges" <victoryusa@jail4judges.org> 
>>To: "www.jail4judges.org" <VictoryUSA@Jail4Judges.org> 
>>Subject: *** The Right to Redress --Not "Petition" *** 
>>Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:20:47 -0700 
>> 
>>J.A.I.L. News Journal 
>>______________________________________________________ 
>>Los Angeles, California May 16, 2007 
>>______________________________________________________ 
>>The Battle Lines are Drawn: J.A.I.L. versus The Foreign Power 
>>A Power Foreign to Our Constitution 
>>________________________________ 
>> 
>>Mission Statement >><http://www.jail4judges.org/goals/implementation/MissionStatement.htm> >> JNJ Library <http://www.jail4judges.org/JNJ_Library/2004.htm> >>Federal J.A.I.L. >><http://www.jail4judges.org/state_chapters/dc/DC_initiative.html
>>FAQs <http://www.jail4judges.org/FAQS.htm> What?MeWarden? >><http://www.jail4judges.org/goals/implementation/Nicolle_Address_27_Nov_2001.htm
>>www.sd-jail4judges.org <http://www.sd-jail4judges.org/
>>________________________________ 
>> 
>> 
>>The Right to Redress 
>>--Not "Petition" 
>>By Barbie, ACIC, National J.A.I.L. 
>>victoryusa@jail4judges.org 
>> 
>> Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right 
>>of the people ... to petition the government 
>>for a redress of grievances. 
>>First Amendment (pertinent portion) 
>> 
>>An organization, We The People Foundation (WTP), brought a federal lawsuit >>that has been ongoing for the last five years on whether the People have >>the right to petition government for redress of their grievances. The >>decision by the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, decided May 8, 2007, may >>be found at 
>>http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5359a.pdf >><http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5359a.pdf
>> 
>>If there was ever a case that screamed out for the J.A.I.L. solution, this >>one is it! There are two issues to be discussed here. (1) Analysis of the >>Petition Clause; and (2) The court's reliance on Supreme Court precedents. 
>> 
>>1. The court fails to consider the material portion of the Petition Clause 
>> 
>>This issue is so simple to figure out, that the court's decision is >>baffling. It states: 
>> 
>> These scholars [referring to Law Review authors] note that the 
>> Petition Clause by its terms refers only to a right "to petition"; 
>> it does not also refer to a right to response or official >>consideration. 
>> (Pg.9) 
>> 
>>The Petition Clause reads: "... to petition the government for a redress >>of grievances." In ruling on the merits of this clause, the entire clause >>must be read and considered --not just one or two words. In fact, the most >>significant part of that clause was not considered by this court. "To >>petition" is qualified by "government" and "for a redress of grievances." 
>> 
>>The first qualifier, "government," indicates to whom the petition is made. >>It doesn't specify any particular branch or agency, nor does it limit the >>term. The subject matter of the issues of petition would determine which >>branch or office of government is addressed by petition. The second >>qualifier, "for a redress of grievances," is the one that gives meaning to >>the entire clause. Without that qualifier, there is no meaning whatsoever >>to the Petition Clause. There must be an objective, a purpose, a reason, 
>>indicated for petitioning. A petition for nothing is not a right. 
>> 
>>The phrase "to petition" or even "to petition the government" is not a >>complete thought. The logical missing ingredient is "why"? "for what >>purpose"? Without an objective to be sought by petitioning, it is no right >>at all. The phrase "for a redress of grievances" provides the objective >>for petitioning. It is the objective complement which completes the >>thought of the entire clause and gives it meaning. Ignoring that phrase is >>not an option. 
>> 
>>The core ingredient of the right of petition is "redress." The modifiers >>indicate the kind of redress (of grievances) and who is responsible to >>provide that redress (government). "To petition" is merely the means by >>which the objective (redress) is sought from government by a petitioner. >>It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. 
>> 
>>To rule that the right to petition does not necessarily include within >>that right the right to a response or consideration of that petition is >>unconstitutional on its face, since it fails to consider (1) the objective >>of petition, to wit, "redress of grievances" and (2) to whom the petition >>for redress is addressed, to wit, "government." Government is responsible >>for considering and responding to a petition for redress of grievances, >>and thus, for providing the redress sought by the petition, within the >>prima facie meaning of the Petition Clause as stated. 
>> 
>>Having failed to grant that right, the appellate judges involved have >>violated the First Amendment Petition Clause, rendering their decision >>null and void as repugnant to the Constitution. They, as well as the trial >>court judge(s), are prime candidates for the J.A.I.L. process when it >>becomes available, if petitioners elect to pursue it in the future after >>exhausting the USSC and the violation is not corrected. See Federal >>J.A.I.L. Bill, >>http://www.jail4judges.org/state_chapters/dc/DC_initiative.html 
>> 
>>2. The court fails to rely on the Constitution as its supreme authority. 
>> 
>>The final full paragraph of the decision states: 
>> 
>> We need not resolve this debate, however, because we must 
>> follow the binding Supreme Court precedent. See Tenet v. Doe, 
>> 544 U.S. 1, 10-11 (2005). And under that precedent, Executive 
>> and Legislative responses to and consideration of petitions are 
>> entrusted to the discretion of those Branches. (Pg.9) 
>> 
>>Rather than rely on the entire Petition Clause as provided in the >>Constitution, as aforesaid, this court abandons that consideration and >>turns to "binding Supreme Court precedent" which holds that "Executive and >>Legislative responses to and consideration of petitions are entrusted to >>the discretion of those Branches." As the guardian of petitioners' rights, >>the federal court had the responsibility of overruling that "precedent" as >>violative of the Constitution. Court precedent is not binding if it >>violates the Constitution. 
>> 
>>The concurring judge even stated: 
>> 
>> Even where the plain text yields a clear interpretation, the Supreme 
>> Court has rejected a pure textualist approach in favor of an analysis 
>> that accords weight to the historical context and the underlying purpose 
>> of the clause at issue. (Concurring Opinion, Pg.1) 
>> 
>>Rather than considering the Constitution for what it clearly says in its >>text, this court turns to "weight to the historical context" and >>"underlying purpose of the clause at issue." The clear "underlying purpose >>of the clause at issue" in this case is shown in the clause itself. No >>other "underlying purpose" need be conjured up. The "weight to the >>historical context" can mean whatever the judges want it to mean--that's a >>very vague and subjective standard not deserving of the Constitution. >>Thomas Jefferson said: 
>>"Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but rather bind them down by >>the chains of the Constitution." 
>> 
>>The Constitution stands on its own except with reference to the >>Declaration of Independence upon which it is based. The DOI sets forth the >>origin of government, to wit, "...That to secure these rights, governments >>are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of >>the governed, ..." This institution of government is done by charter, >>i.e., the Constitution which establishes the consent of the People to >>their government. The Constitution establishes everything anew and does >>away with the historical tyranny under English law. It does not require >>any crutch, such as an "historical context" in the subjective opinion of >>judges, upon which to maintain its integrity. Indeed, all judges are bound >>by their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They do not take an >>oath to uphold and defend "Supreme Court precedent." 
>> 
>>Relying on anything other than the Constitution, and going beyond the >>limitations of the Constitution in making this decision renders it null >>and void. One need not look beyond the Petition Clause itself to determine >>its full meaning and intention. 
>> 
>>________________________________ 
>> 
>> 
>>J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org >><http://www.jail4judges.org/
>> 
>><http://www.sd-jail4judges.org/
>> 
>>To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in >>the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org >><mailto:VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org> 
>> 
>>We are a ministry in great need of your financial support. Please donate >>to this important work at "J.A.I.L." P.O. Box 207, North Hollywood, CA >>91603 
>> 
>>J.A.I.L. is a unique addition to our Constitution heretofore unrealized. 
>> 
>>JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! 
>> 
>>E-Group sign on at <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join> >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join >><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
>> 
>>Visit our active flash - http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm >><http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
>> 
>>* * * 
>> 
>>He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our >>constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their >>acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence 
>> 
>>"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, >>tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel >>Adams 
>> 
>>"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is >>striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><