Is the Redress of Grievance Process Just a Feel Good Exercise?

Devvy Kidd
November 19, 2002

As regular readers to this site know, I agreed to help Bob Schulz with his recently completed Freedom Drive 2002 effort as the National Coordinator. My responsibilities to that effort ended on November 15, 2002 and I am now back at the keyboard. For those unfamiliar with what happened in Washington, DC on November, 14, 2002, please go to:

The day following the rally in Washington where four very important petitions had already been submitted to Congress and Mr. Bush, a vitriolic and scathing article appeared on a news web site about Bob's event. In typical fashion, this article put forth allegations by the ADL that are not only untrue, they are heinous and highly slanderous.

I have been on the ADL's hate web site for a long time. The reference to my name is that I am a "California based extremist." I am also lumped in with violence against the IRS, white supremacists, killers, the Klan and everything else on this hate site:

Scroll down to item #20.

Never have I participated in such activities. I've never been arrested nor suspected of a crime. I have never belonged to any hate group, white supremacist group, Aryan Nation or Klu Klux Klan organization. I'm simply a white female, Catholic, law abiding citizen doing my part in trying to save this country from committing national suicide. Oh, by the way, I was born white, something completely out of my hands. A whole lot of people hate Catholics in this country and there's a piece on this site about about hate and Catholicism. I wrote it because I get lots of hate mail because I'm Catholic:

Inserted 11.20.02:

On that page from the ADL's hate site, notice this:

    "With fellow tax protester Devvy Kidd of Sacramento, California, he established the Wallace Institute, an
organization designed to, in the words of Kidd, "restore the Constitutional Republic" and rid the country of "dictatorial democracy."

In my own words? Um, excuse me, but I have never used the phrase "dictatorial democracy" in my life. I defy the ADL to produce anything I've ever written or said publicly, radio or speeches, where I have used those words or even refer to America as a democracy.

Notice the skin head symbols and symbols of hate and violence on this page. My name is there. So is Bob Schulz, Joe Banister and Larry Becraft. What will people remember when they see our names? Those ugly symbols linking us with hate groups, violence and unlawful activites.

[End of insert]

The Anti-Defamation League (odd name for an organization that makes it's living defaming innocent people) also has a whole section on "tax protesters." What "tax protesters" and anti-defamation against people of the Jewish faith have to do with one another has always escaped me.

Naturally, the page on "tax protesters" is headlined "extremists." I would be real interested to know if Director Abe Foxman over there at the ADL admires our Founding Fathers, i.e. Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence which states that all men are created equal - including those of the Jewish faith. (Being Jewish is not a nationality, folks. It's not an ethnic category. It's a religion.)

"Extremists" like me revere that document, the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. So did "extremists" like Jefferson, Madison and the other courageous individuals who gave everything to give us freedom, including the First Amendment.

As many know by now, the federal bench ruled yesterday that the 10 Commandments could not remain in the court room of Roy Moore, who also happens to be the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. I watched Judge Moore's powerful press conference this morning and if ever there is a modern day man of conviction, I witnessed it. The ADL is applauding the court's ruling to remove the Ten Commandments:

There isn't a scrap of negative writing on this web site about people of the Jewish faith. My project has never revolved around accusations against people of the Jewish faith who own stock in the privately owned Federal Reserve. I don't use this web site to beat up on anyone's religion except Satanists because I don't believe that is a religion. Nothing, only my work to restore America to a constitutional Republic.
Apparently this is unacceptable to Abe Foxman and his staff at the ADL.

I'm getting to the importance of the petition process, but I feel everyone should see both sides of the story if they are going to make judgment calls. The ADL has tremendous power and influence in Washington, DC and the media. Here are a few things the ADL doesn't want you to know about them:

Abe Foxman: Disgrace to my Religion

This article was written by a man of the Jewish faith who used to respect and admire Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League. As you read his article, you'll see quite a different picture of the ADL and their activities. Mr. Warner obviously felt so disturbed and disappointed, he used this expression in his piece: " Foxman: the man, the myth - the self-loathing maggot."

The ADL was also accused of spying on ordinary Americans:

There was a separate civil suit and the ADL lost:

ADL Found Guilty Of Spying By California Court

Bob Schulz is looking into the hit piece that came out on November 15, 2002 and the ADL's slanderous and completely untrue statements. Stay tuned.

On the ADL's web site, the following can be found:

    "A leader in national and state efforts to deter and counter hate-motivated crimes, ADL pioneered the development of a model statute with enhanced penalties for bias-motivated crimes.

    "Approximately four-fifths of the states have enacted laws based on or similar to the ADL model. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of such hate crimes legislation. Hate Crimes: ADL Blueprint for Action, an ADL publication prepared for the White House Conference on Hate Crimes, presents tactics for countering hate crimes gathered from League offices around the country, including training programs, publications such as 1999 Hate Crimes Laws, videos, hate crimes legislation, community programs and other materials.

    "Through its Law Enforcement Bulletin, ADL keeps nearly 5,000 law enforcement professionals up-to-date on developments in the battle against extremism."  (End of text)

Is it any wonder the truth in taxation movement is treated like pond scum by law enforcement? Look at the pre-conditioning going on.

I have a real problem with this for reasons that should be obvious to most people. If it's not, let me enlighten you and see if you can make a connection between the statement above from the ADL's own web site and this:

Excerpts from The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition:

Jewish law institute launched in DC

Janine Zacharia
Nov. 9, 2002

    "Jewish legal experts have created a new institute that will educate jurists and others about 2,000 years of Jewish law and promote the application of the teachings to contemporary legal disputes and other modern-day issues.

    "The launch of the Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law was marked Tuesday night with a kosher dinner at the Supreme Court attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices - Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia.

    "US President George W. Bush sent greetings and applauded the institute for promoting an "understanding of Judaism's rich tradition of legal thought."

    "Last year, Alyza Lewin filed a brief to the Supreme Court based on the Talmud's take on capital punishment when the court was readying to hear a case on the constitutionality of the electric chair.

    "Legal scholars often like to know what other legal traditions have said about certain issues," said Alyza Lewin.

    "Filing that kind of opinion is only part of the institute's mandate.

    "It will also promote the teaching of Jewish law, develop curricula on Jewish law that can be integrated into traditional law school courses, and serve as a resource for anyone wanting to know what the vast Jewish legal tradition has to say on various issues.

    "The institute's first project, already underway, explores how Jewish law can be applied to modern-day issues surrounding corporate ethics, an idea spurred by the recent corporate scandals involving Enron and Worldcom.

    "By demonstrating the philosophy of Jewish law and its moral values, we can bring a little beacon of light in this world," Gurary said.

    "I think this is what we need now, in this day and age."

* * *

Now study this "law":

Public Law 102-14
[HJ Res. 104] March 20, 1991:

Education Day, U.S.A Proclamation, Joint Resolution designating March 26, 1991 as Education Day USA , and it states:

WHEREAS Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great nation was founded;

WHEREAS these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when  they are known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

WHEREAS without these ethical values and principle the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of
returning to chaos;

WHEREAS society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that have resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

WHEREAS the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished part to the generations of the future;

WHEREAS the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

WHEREAS Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

WHEREAS in tribute to this great spiritual leader, "the rebbe," this, his ninetieth year, will be seen as one of "education and giving," the year in which we turn to education and charity. To return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

WHEREAS this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Schneerson, leader of the  worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as "Education Day, USA ..." The President is requested to issue a  proclamation calling upon the people of the U.S. to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

This resolution was adopted, ratified and signed into law by George Bush, Sr.

* * *

The ADL would have thrown twenty hissy fits if an international scroll of honor for Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, and his teachings be designated as Education Day, USA. Why, they would have filed a lawsuit quicker than I can type and I hit this keyboard pretty quick.

Now do you understand why the ADL is giddy with glee over the ruling yesterday that the Ten Commandments cannot stay in Chief Justice Roy Moore's court room down in Alabama? Now do you get the connection between this new law institute and P.L. 102-14?

Back to the redress of grievance petition process, something the ADL has utter disdain for and anyone who exercises their right to do this under the First Amendment.

Is it just some feel-good exercise that has no clout politically or legally? Below is Bob's outstanding speech he presented on November 14, 2002 in Washington, DC. His research turned up some amazing historical facts about the First Amendment, petitions and our right to grievance against a servant government that thumbs it's nose at We the People:


Especially When The Taxes Are Used
To Compound The Grievances
(No Answers, No Taxes)

Robert L. Schulz
Chairman, We The People Congress

Presented at

Freedom Drive 2002
The National Mall, Washington DC

November 14, 2002 Acknowledgment

Bob Schulz wishes to acknowledge and thank Anthony Hargis for his fine research paper, "The Lost Right, Redress of Grievances." (undated). Bob's speech draws heavily on that research and the underlying documents.

The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law.

The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]."

By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People's non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on or place their trust in -- the government's willingness to respond to the People's petitions and without having to resort to violence.

Before going further, I'd like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority.

The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter.

The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly and unambiguously, "Congress shall make NO law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

While some Rights are reserved with qualifications in the Bill of Rights, there are none whatsoever pertaining to the Right of Redress. There are no limits on the Right of Redress. Any constitutional offense is legitimately petitionable.

We have established that the Founding Fathers clearly declared that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the Right to withhold payment of taxes while the grievance remains. By the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers secured for posterity the Right of Redress of Grievances Before payment of Taxes and they made the Right of Redress Before Taxes operate against "the government," that is, against all branches of "the government," -- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Redress reaches all.

Notice that the founding fathers, sitting as the Continental Congress in 1774, held  that this Right of Redress Before Taxes was the means by which "the public tranquility" was to be maintained. Then, sitting as the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers declared that one of the major purposes of the (federal) government was to "insure domestic tranquility." Therefore, whenever this Right of Redress is violated, the People have a double grievance: a denial of justice by the government and, an incitement by the government to general unrest.

Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power.

Under this heading, all officers of the government are liable, if they strayed from their oath of office.

If we are to secure our Rights, we must rely on the laws of nature and a reasoned sense of innovation. To rely on precedent is to oppress posterity with the ignorance or chains of their fathers. Being forced by the government to rely on precedent is, itself, a grievance.

The sequence of Redress Before Taxes was well established in English law at a time when great numbers of Englishmen traveled to America. They brought with them English history and English law: they brought with them the principle of "taxes with consent"; the unlawfulness of "troops quartered in private homes," of "cruel and unusual punishments," and a whole collection of Rights, such as Redress, Speech, Assembly and Trial by Jury.

Any notion, spurious act of Congress or opinion by a Court that taxes must by paid before Redress is a perversion of Natural Law, of modern English law, of the American Constitution and of Truth and  Justice.

The reverse principle of "Taxes Before Redress" is based on the essence of monarchy and kingly power: the king owns everything under his domain. People possess property under a monarch by his grace alone. Since a king owns everything under his domain, he merely has to speak to lawfully dispose of his property. Thus, if a king imposed a tax on land he imposed it on his own land and whoever occupied the land was obligated to pay the tax to the king's treasury. A tax, then, being a part of the king's property, was legally presumed to be in the possession of the king before and after its assessment.

Since the landholder, or landless subject, enjoyed the privilege of tenancy on the land only by the will of the king, he could be required to pay over the tax before he could contest the assessment or redress a grievance.

Thus, the theory that a tax must be paid before redress rests on the presumption that society is organized as a monarchy; that all people living therein exist by grace of an autocrat whether one man or an assembly of men. This proposition was soundly rejected by the Founders in designing our unique system of governance.

In America, such presumptions constitute grievances. The first duty of any officer is to uphold the Constitution the entire Constitution, without reservation and without bribery or blackmail.

Petitioning the government for a Redress of Grievance naturally includes the ability to compel admissions the production of information and answers to questions.

Jefferson wrote, "The right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right."

According to the Right of Redress, as the Founders described it, we have a right to withhold taxes if government violates our rights. But, as American courts describe the Right, we must suffer the injury, pay the taxes, and only then, sue for Redress against an adversary with unlimited resources.

The idea that taxes are to be paid before redress is asserted by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code at  Section 7241, which states, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person ."

How repugnant! American government is supposed to be organized to protect American citizens; but section 7241 authorizes the IRS to destroy them with impunity and the judiciary is cooperating with the executive and legislative branches in a collective decision to deny the People their constitutional Rights. Such acts of government are unconstitutional and must be stopped.

In America, the right to petition our government for redress of grievances is the basis of our liberty. Our founders explicitly recognized this right in the first amendment to our constitution -- for they understood that without it, we could not have a servant government whose power is defined and limited by the consent of the people.

In America, the right to petition our government for a Redress of Grievances is an unalienable right. It derives from our faith in a supreme being - an ultimate moral authority from whom we gain our understanding of equality, justice and the rule of law. Implicit in our first amendment constitutional right to petition our government for a redress of grievances, is the government's absolute moral and legal obligation to respond honestly and completely to the people's petition.

This is the essential cornerstone of Popular Sovereignty -- a government of the People, by the People and for the People.

In 1791, the right to petition became primary among the Rights of the People of the United States of America, as expressed in, and guaranteed by, the First Amendment.

Some would now have us believe that our First Amendment right of petition is nothing more than a guarantee of free speech; that this vital constitutional protection - the very basis of our liberty - is simply a right to voice our grievances to the government. Some would try to convince us that We The People do not have the absolute right to an honest and complete response to our petitions -- or the authority to demand that our government correct the abuses and violations of our liberties that result in our petitions. Some would even go so far as to say it is merely a Right to complain, with no expectation of response.

This is nonsense! This is dangerous talk to a free people. We will not listen to those who would denigrate our Constitution, and undermine the principles of liberty and justice that gave birth to our nation. At best they are imbeciles, and at worst they are tyrants -- or "sharing bedrooms" with tyrants.

We must guard against this nonsense. We must harden our hearts to these false notions that government is God. We must recognize that even in the long run government can never be rational, without a principled Constitution firmly rooted in Liberty. Government has but one legitimate purpose -- to serve and protect all of the people equally. Government is not God. It is our servant. It is accountable to the People.

The right to Petition for Redress of Grievances is the final protection -- the final, peaceful check and balance in our system of Constitutional government in which the government derives its limited powers from the consent of the sovereign people. This is the right which publicly reveals and reiterates for all, who is Master and who is Servant.

The way the system is now working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. The servant is taking over the House: the government has brought us to the brink; the Constitution is hanging by a thread.

Not only is the government neglecting its duties, it is operating outside the boundaries the People have drawn around its powers.

These are some of our grievances:

First: In violation of the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution, the President has colluded with the Congress to pass legislation that authorizes the President to apply the armed forces of the United States of America in hostilities in Iraq without a congressional Declaration of War.

Second: In a hasty response to widespread fear and panic following 9/11, our elected representatives voted on the "U.S.A. Patriot Act" (with many having not read it), which by the plain language of the Act, violates and seizes a number of the unalienable rights of the People.

Third: Our government has relinquished direct control of the monetary system of this nation to a privately owned central bank and has transformed our money into nothing but limitless debt. And, a significant portion of the Federal Reserve stock is held by foreign entities.

And Fourth, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service reneged on their July 2001 agreement to appear at a public forum to answer the People's Remonstrance and well-documented legal charges directly asserting the lack of statutory or Constitutional authority for the federal income tax and the systemic abuses of our unalienable rights in the daily operations of the IRS.

These are tyrannical and despotic acts. Are they to be tolerated by the People?

Let us thank our forefathers for their vision, foresight and innate understanding of the nature of man, political power, and government corruption in recognizing the explicit right of the People to petition their government for redress.

On October 7, 2002, four Petitions for Redress of these grievances were posted on the internet. The four Petitions, signed by thousands of American citizens who reside in all 435 Congressional Districts,  were hand delivered to the offices of each member of the House of Representatives and each member of the Senate (in Washington DC) on November 8, 2002 (last Friday). Then, the Petitions were each formally served on the President on the twelfth.

The Petitions address specific constitutional grievances relating to: 1) the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution; 2) the privacy, due process and free speech clauses of the Constitution and the USA Patriot Act; 3) the money clauses of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve System; and 4) the tax-related clauses of the Constitution and the federal Income Tax system.

With the exception of the Income Tax Petition, the Petitions for Redress include specific questions, which We the People expected to be answered. The Petitions respectfully requested each congressperson and the President to send a representative to meet with the People at 2 P.M. today, right here on the National Mall, to either answer the questions OR tell the People when the questions will be answered.

With respect to the Income Tax Petition, we are further along. Those questions have already gone unanswered by the government following its receipt of an earlier Petition for Redress. The current, second, Petition on the Income Tax Grievances moved the petitioning process to the next level with its list of demands. There is more to the petitioning process than the mere submittal of the "despised" petitions.

With today's failure to respond, we can see a clear pattern. Our elected representatives do not feel compelled to respond to the People.

We must take the appropriate next step. As of two o'clock today, the government has left us no choice but to engage in civil action a pro-active, non-violent mass movement, with the explicit goal of restoring the Republic by bringing the government back under the control of the People and our Rule Book the Constitution of the United States of America.

This meeting here on the National Mall is the culmination of Freedom Drive 2002. On November 8, citizens from across the nation began driving in caravans toward Washington DC, to peaceably assemble here to await the government's response to their Petitions.

We appear to have reached the point where the institutions of the Court and the Congress and the Executive have failed in their Constitutional duty to protect the people from tyranny, The government is refusing to answer the People's allegations of governmental wrongdoing.  Unless the People withhold their money from the government their grievances will fall on deaf ears and Liberty will give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary, economic servitude.

Every adult in this nation has a personal duty and a moral responsibility, that stem directly from our heritage, to repel the tyrannical acts of those to whom the People have granted well defined and limited powers.

The right to Petition is the foundation of Popular Sovereignty and is the direct vehicle for the peaceful, non-violent resolution of matters involving errant government.  This right is the procedural mechanism that enables the People to call any branch of their servant government before them.

In America, there are only two things that stand between the people and government tyranny -- our Constitution, and our will as a free people to protect and defend it.

These petitions are about us -- We the People. They are proof of our resolve to correct our government's abusive and unlawful behavior.

As a People, who are we? And who do we want to be? What kind of country do we want to leave to our children and future generations of Americans?

Will we tolerate tyranny merely to be comfortable?

Again, we ask: What does a free People do when confronted with a government that refuses to honor, and systemically schemes to evade, the boundaries and limitations established for it by We the People?

We stand at the brink of a Constitutionally unauthorized war and the meltdown of a monetary system based on the endless conjuring of debt. Under the guise of "protecting" us from terrorists, our government is attempting to seize our most fundamental rights and deprive us of their protections. To finance it all, the IRS and the Department of Justice use  intimidation by, and the power of, the police state to enforce and prosecute offenses of tax "laws" --- yet they continue to refuse to cite the specific legal authority that purportedly allows them to enforce those laws.

If the People fail to act, we will end forever the chapter in human history when a People reigned sovereign, and the chains of a written constitution limited and bound their government to their service.

We have a choice. YOU have a choice.

We came for answers, but we did not get them. Now we demand that our government obey the Constitution, which, after all is a strongly worded set of principles to govern the government, not the people.

By the terms and provisions of the Constitution the People have not only formed their government and enabled the government to act in certain ways, they have purposely and markedly restricted and prohibited the government from acting in certain other ways.

The nature of our resistance is clear. It is not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it is an act of resistance to a government that is violating the purposes for which the Creator -- through the People and the Constitution -- has ordained civil government.

We are not "anti-war." We are not "anti-tax."  We are "pro-constitution" and "anti-fraud."

Thus far we have pursued peaceful reconciliation and petition. It is the President and the Congress who have refused to respond to our Petitions for Redress of Grievances, in violation of the 1st Amendment.

We did not initiate this conflict. We have been fully committed to peaceful reconciliation and have pursued that course for decades.

We have no desire for resistance or violence of any kind. However, in the People's peaceful reconciliation attempts, the People's petitions and appeals have been met with force, and in some instances with near- military force.

The defense of our homes, families, properties and possessions is a most important point to us. It is our heritage. It is our Right.

There is not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of America, but of defending our personal Rights, Freedoms and Liberties from unjust encroachment.

There was not the least desire of withdrawing our allegiance from the leaders of the branches until it became absolutely necessary -- and, indeed, it has been their own choice.

Our political leaders know that our cause is just.

They know that we, the People, struggle for that freedom to which all men are entitled -- that we struggle against oppression, seizure, plunder, extortion and more than savage barbarity.

We are not moved by any light or hasty suggestion of anger or revenge. Through every possible change of fortune we adhere peaceably to this determination.

Our property and happiness have been attacked. Our self-defense against an aggressor government is righteous.

Our civil action is for the cause of civil justice -- a righteous struggle, undertaken in defense of our property, our happiness and our families. It is to oppose the invasions of usurped power. We will bravely suffer present hardships and face future dangers, to secure the rights of humanity and the blessings of freedom for generations yet unborn.

It is our obligation, as responsible citizens of this country, to set a proper value upon, and to defend to the utmost, our just rights and the blessings of Life and Liberty. Without this personal commitment, a few unprincipled individuals would tyrannize the People, and make the passive multitude the slaves of their power. Thus it is that civil action is not only justifiable, but an indispensable duty to correct these wrongs.

It is upon these principles that we are resisting the government and will oppose force with force.


Any wage earner who gives money to the federal government and any employer who withholds money from the paychecks of working Americans is undermining the People's Rights, Freedoms and Liberties. Under the present circumstances, their behavior must be considered to be un-American.

As our Founders said so clearly: "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."


We the People must get Redress of Grievances before payment of taxes.

No Answers. No Taxes!

* * *

The Freedom Drive 2002 was a noble effort. Personal letters were sent by Bob Schulz to a huge list of advocacy groups and all the leading tax groups, guru and peddlers of untaxing theories. Did any of them attend this event? Not one that I have found.

Bob hasn't received a single penny in compensation for his work since the beginning of 1999 when Joe Banister came to his attention. For me, it's easy to see the difference between those who make their living off the tax movement and those who are the serious movers in ridding America of it's cancers.