In Russian Cyrillic, the notion appears almost poetically. Translated however, it foreshadowed a nightmare of despotism that would forever affect the world order: "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this-who will count the votes, and how."

Attributed to Joseph Stalin, circa 1923, as quoted in The Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary (reprinted 1992) by Boris Bazhanov [Saint Petersburg]

How is your vote counted??

In 2007, two German citizens, recognizing the threat to Freedom poised by reliance on the electronic vote counting machines that had been installed across Germany, sued their State government for redress of their grievance. They charged their natural Right to know, without special or expert knowledge, that their votes were being accurately counted was being violated.

In 2009, the German Constitutional Court(same as our Supreme Court) issued a detailed Order thoroughly examining the constitutional issues involved in election vote tabulation that outright banned the further use of all electronic vote counting in Germany, and specifically required hand marked, publicly counted paper ballots for all future elections.

Also in 2007, the WTP Foundation organized the National Clean Election Lawsuit ("NCEL") - where three citizen plaintiffs from each state sued the chief election official(s) from their state. The case was filed in New York, in federal District Court in Albany, and assigned to Judge Lawrence Kahn.

On June 4, 2008, even though WTP satisfied New York State's "long-arm" jurisdiction statute by proving every state's election process was intimately connected to New York City where the (unofficial) vote subtotals from across the nation were being physically tabulated by the Associated Press and the major television networks using secret office locations in the City, which corporations were in addition, each legally headquartered within New York state, Judge Kahn dismissed all non-New York Defendants and non-New York Plaintiffs.

The non-NY Plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could file the same case in a federal court in their individual states (none did). However, Judge Kahn ruled NY Plaintiffs (Bob Schulz and John Liggett) did possess legal standing and could continue the lawsuit. Discovery and a date for Trial by a jury, were scheduled. In 2008, discovery got underway.

In October of 2010, the Defendant NY State Board of Elections again asked the Court to dismiss the case, once again asserting that Schulz and Liggett lacked standing to sue. This motion came a full twenty-eight months after the Court had already ruled Schulz and Liggett had standing, and after Schulz and Liggett obtained 44,414 pages of "top secret" (i.e., "highly restricted," not to be made public) evidence from the State in response to their specific discovery demands for documents explaining specifically how their votes are recorded and counted by the Dominion and ES&S electronic voting systems.

Plaintiffs Schulz and Liggett had likewise, many months earlier, provided a number of documents and requested evidence to the State Defendants per rules of discovery.  Plaintiff's evidence contained numerous items and videos documenting industry-wide election machine flaws, vote counting malfunctions and general susceptibility to illegal vote tampering/hacking, as well as substantial condemnation of electronic voting machines from both state election officials (in other states) and technical/academic experts. In short, the State, for many months, knew at least part of what Plaintiffs intended to show the jury, moving the Court a second time, to dismiss the lawsuit.      

By January 10 (2011), the District Court had received the legal briefs from both sides and was in a position to decide the State's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Click here for a copy of our Brief in Opposition to the State's motion to dismiss and itsAppendix.

On July 7, the Court issued its Decision, granting the motion and dismissing the case.

Based on numerous factual and legal defects in the Court's Order to Dismiss, On July 21, Schulz and Liggett filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

Unfortunately, we must now add Judge Kahn's decision to the sorry record of the collective federal government in responding to attempts by WTP to keep elected officials from stepping outside the boundaries drawn around their power by the letter and the spirit of our federal Constitution.

Lawsuits against the Government

ARE First Amendment Petitions for Redress of Grievances!

The record clearly demonstrates in 1995, we filed a professionally drawn, constitutional challenge to the bailout of the Mexican Peso by the Executive Branch (President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin) without Congressional authorization, a violation of Article I. The Peso bailout, (actually designed to insure the Wall Street bankers holding Mexican bonds), proceeded by Treasury's direct purchase of Peso's by its secretive (i.e., non-audited) "ESF" fund and by issuing loan guarantees costing U.S. taxpayers the bulk of $50 billion. (Note that before becoming Treasury Secretary, Rubin previously managed a $5 billion fund of Mexican investments at Goldman Sacs.)  The case was dismissed by the federal courts because the constitutional harm being suffered by the dozen citizen-Plaintiffs was no different from the harm suffered by everyone else in the country. The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.

The record also shows in 1999, we filed a professionally drawn, constitutional challenge to the U.S.military bombing of Kosovo, Yugoslavia, a unilateral, unlawful decision made by the Executive Branch (President. Clinton, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) without Congressional authorization, a violation of Article I. The case was also dismissed by the federal courts because the constitutional harm being suffered by the Plaintiffs was no different from the harm suffered by everyone else in the Country. The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.

The record also shows between 1999 and 2003, we repeatedly served professionally drawn, First Amendment Petitions for Redress on each every member of Congress and the President over the invasion of Iraq without congressional authorization, the violation of the Money clauses of Article I by the Federal Reserve System, the violation of the privacy clauses of the 4th Amendment by the U.S. Patriot Act, the violation of the Second Amendment by the federal gun control laws, the violation of the "faithfully execute the laws" clause of Article 2 by the President's refusal to execute the laws against illegal immigrants, the violation of the Declaration of Independence's "sovereign nation" principle by those federal officials who are holding ongoing talks aimed at creating a North American Union, and the violation of the Tax Clauses of Article I by the imposition and enforcement of a direct, un-apportioned tax on individual labor.

Finally, because no court had ever declared the meaning of the Redress/Accountability Clause of the First Amendment, in 2004 WTP Petitioned the federal court to declare the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under that clause - the last ten words of the First Amendment. In the end, the Court (erroneously) ruled the Government does not have to listen or respond to First Amendment Petitions for Redress, rendering the Petition clause null and void. We waited seven months for that decision, following oral arguments before the federal Court of Appeals. Although the legal and constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment had never been addressed by the Supreme Court, (and remains so) the nation's High Court decided not to hear the case.

In December of 2006, while we were waiting for the Court to declare the meaning of the Right to Petition in our case, the Congress inserted a brief provision in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, authorizing the Executive Branch to publish a list of "specified frivolous positions" and to fine anyone $5,000 who mentions oneof them in any IRS related communication. In March of 2007, while we were waiting for the Court to declare the meaning of the Right to Petition in our case, the Executive branch published the list of its (so-called) frivolous positions, which, amazingly, included the First Amendment Right to Petition.

The Court then issued its (erroneous) decision in our case, declaring the Government is not obligated to respond to First Amendment Petitions for Redress and the People do not! have the Right to impose economic sanctions against the government if the government refuses to respond to Petitions to Remedy violations of the Constitution. (This despite the very words of the Founders)

Let's not forget the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case of a few years ago to allow a municipality to seize the land of a private citizen and then give it to another private citizen if the municipality can derive more tax revenue from the other person, all in violation of the Property clauses.

Then there is the recent 2011 decision by SCOTUS that government can enter your home without a warrant if they simply suspect you may be destroying evidence.

Let's not also forget the decision this May by the Supreme Court of Indiana that held a citizen has no right of self-defense against an invasion of his home by law enforcement agents even if the invasion is patently unlawful (no warrant, etc.).

Have You Had Enough Yet?

WANT RELIEF?

JOIN THE CONSTITUTION LOBBY!

Think about what most of the people have been doing for decades, over many administrations, suffering oneoppressive act after the other, by both political parties. Law abiding, peaceful citizens all, they rally and march, bellyache, bitch and complain, burn up the Internet with their emails, blogs and videos, in chorus yelling, "They can't do that!"

But they DO.

Their bellyaching changes nothing. Their votes change nothing.

Of course, things eventually quiet down, until the next oppressive act, when the cycle of grandstanding and posturing starts all over again.

After awhile, the bellyachers lose sight of the Constitutional forest for the trees, forgetting about the cumulative, earlier losses of freedom, failing to "connect the dots" and failing to see the immediate and present danger - the loss of freedom, one slice at a time.

The sad truth is, individuals and small groups have changed nothing, whether by Petitioning for Redress under the First Amendment, or simply bellyaching.

Beyond this, the political process continues its dance of illusion, its two parties promising, "just onemore election" will fix what ails the nation.

The People, largely ignorant of their little-known, long forgotten Rights protected by the Constitution, continue to rely on the electoral process to secure accountability in government, as if their Rights were, or could ever be, guaranteed by a political majority of those in the Congress or their State Legislatures.

If you live in Connecticutor New York and have not joined the six week old Constitution Lobby in your State, WHY NOT? You can join the Connecticut Constitution Lobby here. You can join the New York Constitution Lobby here. Join the weekly Constitution Lobby conference call.

If you live in another state and have not stepped up to create a Constitution Lobby for your state, WHY NOT?

We the People are at fault for the mess we are in. We allowed it to happen. Let's get it through our heads:

The Constitution in not a menu.

The Constitution cannot defend itself.

It's obvious, the Government WILL NOT defend the Constitution.

It's obvious, the Constitution will not be defended unless the People rise to defend it.

It's obvious, the People are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty.

It's obvious, individuals and small groups cannot prevail against government oppression.

It's obvious that despite their best efforts, those attempting to rely on the political process to secure their Individual Rights and Libertycannot possibly prevail against both a corrupt government and corrupt political majority of the populace.

It's obvious, We the People will achieve the reform we are entitled to only if we are pro-active, non-violent and have an organized mass-movement united in spirit and purpose.

It's obvious that We the People need a new institution in every state dedicated to institutionalizing Citizen Vigilance, confronting government wrongdoers, and securing meaningful REDRESS FOR OUR GREIVANCES through the coordinated, en masse exercise of all peaceful, lawful means of organized resistance expressly protected by our Constitution and Individual natural Rights as true Sovereigns granted us by our Creator. 

It's obvious, only a CONSTITUTION LOBBY of, by and for the People in each state, with a dues paying membership of 5% of the state's population will prevail.

So, People, let's get on with it.

It's either this or eternal tyranny.

It's time to choose and live with the consequences.

Bob Schulz

Please know that your donations are urgently needed.  We are spending money hand over fist Jto facilitate the start-up of the Constitution Lobby here in New Yorkand elsewhere.

Your giving is going for GOOD.   Please donateto WTP today.