“This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Please stop the transition.”
Last September, in defense of the Constitution, Bob Schulz sued Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed. Chairman Ben Bernanke to prevent the flow of public funds to AIG until they identified where in the Constitution they found the authority, granted by the People, to give or lend public funds or credit to a private party for a decidedly and definitively private purpose.
Soon after, also in defense of the Constitution, Bob Schulz sued the leaders of the U.S. Executive and Legislative Branches and Fed. Chairman Ben Bernanke, to prevent the flow of public funds under the $700 Billion Bailout Bill (The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) until they identified where in the Constitution they found the authority, granted by the People, to give or lend public funds or credit to a private party for a decidedly and definitively private purpose.
Despite the fact the bailout legislation passed into law expressly provides for Judicial consideration of injunctions brought on constitutional grounds, the federal District Court dismissed the case on the basis that Schulz lacked “standing” to bring the constitutional challenge and, therefore, the Court lacked “jurisdiction” to hear the case.
Yesterday, Schulz perfected his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan. His Argument is repeated, below in its entirety. For a full copy of his Brief, including the Facts and Procedural History, click here.
In sum, Schulz argues that the decisions by the federal Courts, in cases (Petitions) seeking Redress of direct violations of the Constitution by officials in the two other branches of the federal Government, have put Schulz (and all other individuals) in the intolerable position of having to rely exclusively on the electoral process (i.e., the majority of people voting) for a guarantee of his Rights, not the Constitution or the Courts.
A. THE JUDICIARY’S APPLICATION OF ITS STANDING
DOCTRINE, COUPLED WITH THE JUDICIARY’S
APPLICATION OF ITS STARE DECISIS DOCTRINE,
IN A STRING OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO
ACTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT, ADDS UP TO AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INTOLERABLE DEPRIVATION
OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO A GOVERNMENT
REPUBLICAN IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE.
WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS
Petitions for Redress of Grievances 95,854 Signatures
Fully Informed Jury Association
Reporting For Jury Duty: Jury Service During The Trial
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury?s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."