 |
I received this message today: “Our repeated Petitions for redress of grievances have been answered only by repeated injury.”
Has this been your experience with judicial corruption and government corruption?
This message came from 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.” (The Declaration of Independence ¶30).
235 years later, we have the same problem.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:
“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.”
Congress has no power to prohibit petitioning the government for redress of grievances because the Constitution says so.
And the Constitution does not grant the judiciary the power to prohibit petitioning the government for redress of grievances, because the Constitution grants very limited powers to the judiciary. Section 2 of Article III provides:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
Our problem today is that the judiciary has violated the U.S. Constitution repeatedly, stealing our Constitutional rights.
Some judges try to claim that a lawsuit is not a “petition for redress of grievances.” That is utterly false. And just a few months ago, The United States Supreme Court made this clear in the matter of Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania v. Guarnieri, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 180 L.Ed.2d 408 (U.S. 06/20/2011).
“This Court’s precedents confirm that the Petition Clause protects the right of individuals to appeal to courts and other forums established by the government for resolution of legal disputes. “[T]he right of access to courts for redress of wrongs is an aspect of the First Amendment right to petition the government.” Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, 896– 897 (1984); see also BE&K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U. S. 516, 525 (2002); Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U. S. 731, 741 (1983); California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508, 513 (1972).
“This Court has said that the right to speak and the right to petition are “cognate rights.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 530 (1945); see also Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 610, n. 11 (1985). “It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances.” Thomas, 323 U. S., at 530. Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of a grievance.
“The Petition Clause undoubtedly does have force and application in the context of a personal grievance addressed to the government. See, e.g., Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U. S. 1 (1964); Thomas, 323 U. S., at 530–531. At the founding, citizens petitioned on a wide range of subjects, including matters of both private and public concern. Petitions to the colonial legislatures concerned topics as diverse as debt actions, estate distributions, divorce proceedings, and requests for modification of a criminal sentence. Higginson, A Short History of the Right to Petition Government for the Redress of Grievances, 96 Yale L. J. 142, 146 (1986). Although some claims will be of interest only to the individual making the appeal, for that individual the need for a legal remedy may be a vital imperative. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102 (1996); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371 (1971).
“Petitions to the government assume an added dimension when they seek to advance political, social, or other ideas of interest to the community as a whole. Petition, as a word, a concept, and an essential safeguard of freedom, is of ancient significance in the English law and the Anglo-American legal tradition. See, e.g., 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *143. The right to petition applied to petitions from nobles to the King, from Parliament to the King, and from the people to the Parliament, and it concerned both discrete, personal injuries and great matters of state.
“The right to petition traces its origins to Magna Carta, which confirmed the right of barons to petition the King.
“W. McKechnie, Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John 467 (rev. 2d ed. 1958). The Magna Carta itself was King John’s answer to a petition from the barons. Id., at 30–38. Later, the Petition of Right of 1628 drew upon centuries of tradition and Magna Carta as a model for the Parliament to issue a plea, or even a demand, that the Crown refrain from certain actions. 3 Car. 1, ch. 1 (1627). The Petition of Right stated four principal grievances: taxation without consent of Parliament; arbitrary imprisonment; quartering or billeting of soldiers; and the imposition of martial law. After its passage by both Houses of Parliament, the Petition received the King’s assent and became part of the law of England. See S. Gardiner, The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution, 1603–1660, pp. 60–61 (1886). The Petition of Right occupies a place in English constitutional history superseded in importance, perhaps, only by Magna Carta itself and the Declaration of Right of 1689.
“The following years saw use of mass petitions to address matters of public concern. See 8 D. Hume, History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688, p. 122 (1763) (“Tumultuous petitioning . . . was an admirable expedient . . . for spreading discontent, and for uniting the nation in any popular clamour”). In 1680, for instance, more than 15,000 persons signed a petition regarding the summoning and dissolution of Parliament, “one of the major political issues agitating the nation.” Knights, London’s ‘Monster’ Petition, 36 Historical Journal 39, 40–43 (1993). Nine years later, the Declaration of Right listed the illegal acts of the sovereign and set forth certain rights of the King’s subjects, one of which was the right to petition the sovereign. It stated that “it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King, and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegal.” 1 W. & M., ch. 2; see also L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, pp. 69–71 (1981).
“The Declaration of Independence of 1776 arose in the same tradition. After listing other specific grievances and wrongs, it complained, “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.” The Declaration of Independence ¶30.” (Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania v. Guarnieri, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 180 L.Ed.2d 408 (U.S. 06/20/2011).)
The United States Supreme Court has regularly expressly held that the Petition Clause protects a right to petition courts by filing a lawsuit for redress of grievances. See, e.g., (NAACP v. Button, 83 S. Ct. 328, 371 U.S. 415 (U.S. 01/14/1963); California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508, 513 (1972); Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993).) And now, see Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania v. Guarnieri, 131 S.Ct. 2488, 180 L.Ed.2d 408 (U.S. 06/20/2011). The Petition Clause of the First Amendment “protects the right of individuals to appeal to courts and other forums established by the government for resolution of legal disputes.” (Borough of Duryea, 131 S. Ct. at 2494.)
There is absolutely no question that the U.S. Constitution gives us the right to sue (petition) government for redress of grievances. This is the fundamental background to every lawsuit against judges and government officials.
In a multi-part article, I will now explain why you can sue judges and why judges do not have immunity.
William M. Windsor
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose corruption in government, law enforcement, and the judiciary. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite of my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.
{jcomments on}