howthejudiciarystole.doc

HOW THE JUDICIARY STOLE THE RIGHT TO PETITION John E. Wolfgram* I. INTRODUCTION** 258 II. THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL ARROGANCE TO FOUR CENTRAL ASPECTS OF THE PETITION CLAUSE 261 A. ASPECT ONE: THE RIGHT OF PETITION FOR REDRESS vs. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 261 B. ASPECT TWO: JUDICIALLY CREATED PERSONAL OFFICIAL IMMUNITY 269 C. ASPECT THREE: POLITICAL PERSECUTION FOR EXERCISING PETITION RIGHTS 276 D. ASPECT FOUR: THE JUDICIAL CONTEMPT FOR PETITIONING TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES WITH GOVERNMENT IN FEDERAL COURT 290 III. THE DUAL MEANING OF THE PETITION CLAUSE: PROCEDURAL vs. SUBSTANTIVE 294 IV. THE JUDICIARY IS ORGANIZED TO AVOID SUBSTANTIVE REDRESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCES AND REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF UNREDRESSABILITY 301 V. CONCLUSION 305 _______________________________________ * John E. Wolfgram, B.A. Degree (University of Wisconsin), J.D. Degree (Southwestern University 1977) Wolfgram founded the Constitutional Defender Association in 1989 to advance Petition Clause Principles. Its name derives from the observation that the practical value of a Constitution depends on the effective enforcement of constitutional rights and limits against government, by the people. The Petition Clause is the People’s Right to redress government violations of the Constitution. It is The Constitution’s Defense system against government usurpation and oppression. More about the author and his legal philosophy can be obtained on line at . There, look up his name under “Confirmed Abuses.” ** Editor’s note: To better demonstrate the author’s passionate voice, many points of emphasis herein have been italicized or capitalized accordingly. I. 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