IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION Inc., )
et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No. 1:04-cv-01211 EGS
)
)
UNITED STATES, et al., )
)
)
Defendants,
_____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURICE
OF PLANTIFFS COMPLAINT
____________________________________________________________
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land` and any ‘law’, (i.e., Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C.) which a federal prosecutor uses to nullify the Constitution is an act perpetrated to overthrow the Constitution. We, the people, expect to be protected. We don’t expect ‘public servants’ to engage in TREASONS acts.
The Separation of Powers dictates that the judicial part of the government must remind the Legislative part of the government in the harshest word of their responsibility. Which is to obey the law…Redress of Grievance is a citizens RIGHT guaranteed under the constitution!
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER,
We would more surely preserve the important values of the doctrine of separation
[403 U.S. 388, 412] of powers - and perhaps get a better result - by recommending a solution to the Congress as the branch of government in which the Constitution has vested the legislative power. Legislation is the business of the Congress, and it has the facilities and competence for that task - as we do not. Professor Thayer, speaking of the limits on judicial power, albeit in another context, had this to say:
1
"And if it be true that the holders of legislative power are careless or evil, yet the constitutional duty of the court remains untouched; it cannot rightly attempt to protect the people, by undertaking a function not its own. On the other hand, by adhering rigidly to its own duty, the court will help, as nothing else can, to fix the spot where responsibility lies, and to bring down on that precise locality the thunderbolt of popular condemnation. . . . For that course - the true course of judicial duty always - will powerfully help to bring the people and their representatives to a sense of their own responsibility."
The above statements must prevent the federal legal community and the legislature from using the ‘law’ to plunder.
James Madison said…” If you allow the representatives to plunder, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government”.
The words “DUE PROCESS of LAW” express the fundamental ideas of American justice. A “Due Process of Law” clause is found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Article of the Constitution. For an ‘officer’ of the Court to argue against this clause is a blatant disregard of the supreme law of the land and cannot be glibly dismissed.
If by any chance, federal judge rules in favor of this misguided attorney….PLEASE send to the Supreme Court immediately. For this will be a definite sign that the lawful government of the United States has been overthrown.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________________
Robert B.Graham Sr
46 Lark Drive
Holland, PA.
215-355-5660
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION Inc., )
et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) No. 1:04-cv-01211 EGS
)
)
UNITED STATES, et al., )
)
)
Defendants, )
AMICUS CURICE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
Defendants counsel, Ivan C. Dale, thru his Motion To Dismiss is trying to violate the Constitution of the United States when he writes, “It is well-settled law that nothing in the United States Constitution imposes any affirmative obligation on the federal government to listen to or respond to plaintiffs’ “petitions,” or to otherwise recognize plaintiffs’ associations and bargain with them.” Emphasis added.
To write something like the above to an American Judge in defense of a derelict and negligent Congress boggles the mind. Trial Attorney Dale does not cite any of the ‘well-settled law.
I pray that the hearing judge will severely reprimand this attorney posing as an American. I believe this ‘attorney’ who can only defend the federal government and not the Constitution should be brought in front of a ‘grand jury’ on charges of treason, and when convicted he should be deported. He dislikes the Constitution, so he should not have the protections of the Constitution.
These grounds are set forth in a memorandum in support of this motion, which is served and filed herewith.
I pray that the hearing judge will excuse me as I am unlearned in the Law but I do love my country, my constitution and all that it stands for.
The specific relief sought by this motion is an order compelling the defendants to perform and answer the plaintiff’s complaint, immediately!
Oral argument is requested:
Dated: October 28, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
ROBERT B. GRAHAM SR.
Pro See
46 Lark Drive
Holland, Pa. 18966
1-215-355-5660
