These are very important times we live in. Within the last few weeks, "We The People" givemeliberty.org has started collecting signatures on petitions for class action lawsuits against the government of the United States. It will be filed at the district level but expect within a few years it will have to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.

It is critical that these issues of constitutionality be addressed and repaired. Just last month, in Texas, a man was thrown in prison for 129 years and not given the right to defend himself, his lawyers were ordered to "shut up" and even the jury was abused by a judge puppet of the IRS. You see, this businessman had refused to take federal withholding taxes out of his employees paychecks. He said there is no such law requiring him to do so --- which there isn't. He asked to see the law. No response. He asked hundreds of times. There is no law and none was shown to him, and his trial was a farce, with hundreds of supporters looking on, he got 129 years in prison for daring to ask to see the law he was being charged with. And he wasn't allowed to present a defense.

This is supposed to be land of the free. It is apparently still the home of the brave, as this man stood up for what is right, despite the corruption facing him.

Following are four documents that I wish those mature enough to read. These four documents and the organization backing them, will change the United States within your lifetime. With good fortune, the USA will return to being that country of high standards for individual freedoms which the world loved for its first 175 years.

Before you read this let me explain what a "Petition for Redress" is all about. Our Constitution gives American citizens the rights to question our government and have our questions answered. There are hundreds of questions of Constitutional nature which We The People have been petitioning for years to get congress to answer, and on which we have been met with only silence. They have refused to show up at any of the meetings, refused to answer any of the thousands upon thousands of letters containing the questions, they(all of congress, and the president and his staff) have scheduled to meet with We The People to answer the questions, and then exactly 0 of the 550+ showed up when We The People brought thousands.

The Founders of our country have clearly stated that when the government refuses to redress, that it is an appropriate action for the citizens to hold their money. Thus, many millions of people in the USA are holding their tax returns, holding their taxes, and being good citizens as the Founders had set forth. The IRS organized crime unit is responding by jailing as many as they can, and seizing as much property as they can. So far about 1.5% of the United States population is in prison, on probation, or recently has been. That's staggering.

Read these, in all seriousness.

http://www.valhallalegends.com/pub/Petition%20for%20Redress%20--%20USA%20Patriot%20Act.htm

http://www.valhallalegends.com/pub/Petition%20for%20Redress%20--%20Income%20Tax.htm

http://www.valhallalegends.com/pub/Peition%20for%20Redress%20--%20War%20Powers.htm

http://www.valhallalegends.com/pub/Petition%20for%20Redress%20--%20Federal%20Reserve.htm

We The People can be reached at: http://givemeliberty.org

thanks for posting this i saw them last night and was wondering why they hadnt been brought up yet

But Grok! I do not understand these such changes, and there for are afraid of these new ways.

Edit: Wait, but I am only one person, what difference could I possibly make!

Edit Again: Grok, Aren't those Class Action Lawsuits the ones where all the people who signed the petition get $2.00 and the lawyers get $20,000,000? :P

Ok, I'll stop. hehe

I know you're attempting humor, but these are no jokes. We're in a constitutional crisis like no other time in our history since the beginning.

These class action lawsuits are not asking for any money. You would know that if you had read the website.

Is there anything Canadians do?

mmm, that is a very well-written proposition to get people to read those articles. I will have to come back and read them when I am not on my Palm (they're too wide for the narrow screen).

However, just based on the titles, I am concerned the only one that I would support is the income tax one. Ideologically speaking, I support the Patriot Act; no American has had it illegitimately used against him/her, unless they try to say that this guy they put in prison for 129 years is a terrorist. However, I doubt it will go that far. We need to realize that it should be a positive thing, provided corrupt people don't abuse it. My stance is the duties of those who engage in civic participation involve getting the right people elected.

I teeter-totter between being a civil libertarian and not.... Sometimes I think people need to be stopped before they do that which is damaging to themselves (drugs, for example), and sometimes I think that, as long as it doesn't hurt other people, kill yourself.

Of course, even libertarian Locke said that one could not kill oneself....

the patriot cats give the constable the right to lock any one he thinks is commiting an act of terror in jail and no court can release that person. the only person that can release them is the constable.
and an act of terrorism has a wide definition. someone [u]suspected[/u] of hacking, selling drugs, or pretty much any crime can be considered a domestic terrorist.

The thing about the Patriot Act, though, is that it is still required to answer to our checks and balances.

If a person illegitemately locks someone up by use of the PA, then once that person has been found innocent, (s)he will be able to sue the former's ass off, not to mention that the former will probably lose his job at the very least.....

Uhm, I don't quite get the war powers one. It likes to bring up a lot of irrelevant points, and It looks like it says "The congress should not be able tell the president he can go to war without the congress saying he can go to war"... So let's see. The congress, who has to vote to go to war, isn't allowed to say the president can go to war when he feels necesary without wasting time with another vote?

politics suck
my vote doesnt matter
i wont get involved.

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=2;threadid=5265;start=0#msg44119 date=1076717806]
politics suck
my vote doesnt matter
i wont get involved.
[/quote]

MTV begs to differ!

[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=5265;start=0#msg44101 date=1076712087]
So let's see. The congress, who has to vote to go to war, isn't allowed to say the president can go to war when he feels necesary without wasting time with another vote?
[/quote]

That is correct. Another way of saying that is Congress cannot abandon its duty to vote on going to war. The vote of Congress to enact war is a people-driven power, with Congress being representative of the people. This serves the purpose of preventing Congress from washing its hands of its duties, and giving King-like powers to the President. No one person should be able to decide to take the United States to war. In 1778 it was about restricting the power of government. In 2004, who in their right minds would want a single person, especially the United States President, to be able to make war just because he feels it is necessary? The USA needs the protections of the Constitution against Presidents. The Constitution is not a list of powers granted to government, its a document restricting government. People seem to have forgotten this, but you can realize it if you put yourself in the minds of the Founders.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5265;start=0#msg44144 date=1076720611]
[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=5265;start=0#msg44101 date=1076712087]
So let's see. The congress, who has to vote to go to war, isn't allowed to say the president can go to war when he feels necesary without wasting time with another vote?
[/quote]

That is correct. Another way of saying that is Congress cannot abandon its duty to vote on going to war. The vote of Congress to enact war is a people-driven power, with Congress being representative of the people. This serves the purpose of preventing Congress from washing its hands of its duties, and giving King-like powers to the President. No one person should be able to decide to take the United States to war. In 1778 it was about restricting the power of government. In 2004, who in their right minds would want a single person, especially the United States President, to be able to make war just because he feels it is necessary? The USA needs the protections of the Constitution against Presidents. The Constitution is not a list of powers granted to government, its a document restricting government. People seem to have forgotten this, but you can realize it if you put yourself in the minds of the Founders.
[/quote]
I was thinking it was talking specifically about iraq, not an overall thing.

[quote author=Grok link=board=6;threadid=5265;start=0#msg44144 date=1076720611]
The Constitution is not a list of powers granted to government, its a document restricting government. People seem to have forgotten this, but you can realize it if you put yourself in the minds of the Founders.
[/quote]

It is actually both, Grok. The US Constitution is a social contract explicity entered into by the initial thirteen states that both granted Federal authority (as the states had to be convinced to do so -- they did not want to initially), and limited Federal authority by imposing checks and balances -- the Executive to enforce that which the Legislature decided, the Legislature to be the voice of the people, and the Judiciary, to ensure that the others were acting in concert with each other and the framework of the Constitution.

Myndfyre, read this blog please.

Comments?

[quote author=Grok link=topic=5265.msg87266#msg87266 date=1099523501]
Myndfyre, read this blog please.

Comments?
[/quote]

I'm at work.  I'll check it out when I get home; I hardly even remember what this is about.