In by email:

John E. Wolfgram: How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition

INTRODUCTION

I.THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL ARROGANCE TO FOUR CENTRAL ASPECTS OF THE PETITION CLAUSE

A)ASPECT ONE: THE RIGHT OF PETITION FOR REDRESS vs. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

B)ASPECT TWO: JUDICIALLY CREATED PERSONAL & OFFICIAL IMMUNITY

C)ASPECT THREE: POLITICAL PERSECUTION FOR EXERCISING PETITION RIGHTS

D)ASPECT FOUR: THE JUDICIAL CONTEMPT FOR PETITIONING TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES WITH GOVERNMENT IN FEDERAL COURT

II.THE DUEL MEANING OF THE PETITION CLAUSE: PROCEDURAL vs. SUBSTANTIVE

III. THE JUDICIARY IS ORGANIZED TO AVOID SUBSTANTIVE REDRESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCES AND REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF UNREDRESSABILITY

IV. CONCLUSION

---

INTRODUCTION

The right (of petition) embraces dissent, and "would seem unnecessary to be expressly provided for in a republican government, since it results from the very nature and structure of its institutions. It is impossible that it could be practically denied until the spirit of liberty had wholly disappeared and the people had become so servile and debased as to be unfit to exercise any of the privileges of freemen." "[D]eprivation of it would at once be felt by every freeman as a degradation. ⁽²⁾

* * * *

On September 2nd we will Rally for Freedom and Constitutional Law in Minnesota across the river from the GOP presidential national convention.

LiveLeak.com - "Vendetta TV": THE REVOLUTION STARTS TODAY!