The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is guaranteed to every American citizen in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those of us involved in battles with the Internal Revenue Service know too well how our “petitions”, or responses, fall on deaf ears, even though they are based on the Constitution, the law and precedent-setting Supreme Court rulings.

The IRS routinely dismisses our arguments as “frivolous” or “tax protester rhetoric”.

I ran across the following piece by John Wolfgram, which offers some insight into the history of the right to petition, the erosion of that right by oppressive governments, and the effect that has on the rest of our rights.

I hope you find it educational and thought-provoking.

John Wolfgram writes:


Chambers v Baltimore & Ohio RR.  This is how I used it in Stolen Rights:

The development of our common law understanding of the right of petition began, but didn’t end with the Magna Carta. Over the next 450 years it became the cornerstone upon which the House of Commons built its relationship with the King. Then in 1669, Commons resolved with authority that every commoner in England had “the inherent right to prepare and present petitions” to Commons “in case of grievance” and for commons to receive the same and judge its fitness. Twenty years later, after the “glorious revolution” the 5th right of the “Bill of Rights” of 1689 declared the right of the subjects to petition the King directly, and “all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning to be illegal.”[1][1]

That is our “common law.” It explains why our Supreme Court said of it:

The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society, it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government.[2][2]

That is what the Right of Petition is. It is the right conservative of all others. It is designed to bring government to account under the law of the land, or by force if necessary, for the violation of other rights. It is so powerful that its free use will prevent the hostilities of war between government and governed and the mere promise to respect it can restore peace to warring factions because it is the instrument of justice under law, as between government and governed. It is intended to subject government to the compulsory process of law when government does not want to fairly redress the grievance. It is so important that “law” without it, is “law without justice”, and that is another name for oppression.

Abridgment of the Right of Petition is advance notice of government’s intent to relentlessly oppress its people. We in America, whose right of petition is so abridged and burdened by government created immunities from redress and accountability, are on notice of government’s intent to progressively and relentlessly oppress us into tyranny.

Understand something: “government’s intent to oppress” is not an intention agreed to by officials meeting in secret and designing a program of oppression. Such a “secret conspiracy” is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about is the natural and inevitable result of increasing abridgment of petition rights, whether protected by a constitution or not.  That’s what it means to be a “natural” or “unalienable right.”

Abridgment of the right to complain to the oppressor about his oppression is necessarily unnatural and progressively oppressive and that lays the seeds of rebellion and the foundations for terrorism.

But there is something uniquely threatening about oppressing the unalienable right of petition because it is the “right conservative of all others.”  The reason government abridges it is to allow its officers to violate all other rights with impunity and unaccountability.

When government does that, there is only one just and proper response: To throw off such government by any means necessary.

That is the bottom line of the “unalienable right of petition for redress.”


[2][2]. See Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907).


No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

Tags: ,

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 18th, 2010 at 10:54 am and is filed under IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One comment


It is already too late for the dwellers on this earth. They have allowed themselves to be dumbed-down to the extent that they have developed into mental cowards, i.e., brain dead!

October 9th, 2011 at 7:59 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)