Robert L. Schulz v. United States

Through more than 18 years of litigation, relying on a thorough review of its historical record, Robert Schulz has strived to fully restore the First Amend­ ment Right to Petition. As CEO, he guided the We The People organization’s petitions for redress of violations of the Constitution’s prohibition against undeclared wars, invasions of privacy, un-enumerated powers and direct un-apportioned taxes. Absent a response, the or­ ganization petitioned for redress of a violation of the Right itself - tax withholding, which the organization reasoned prevents the peaceful enforcement of Rights against a Government stubbornly resistant to the People’s rightful authority. Government enforcement actions and litigation followed; relying on two inappli­ cable cases (Smith and Knight), the D.C. Circuit held Government did not have to respond to the Petitions; the 2d Circuit then held the Withholding Petition was forbidden speech subject to penalty. Soon after, this Court declared “we must look to historical practice to determine its scope” {Heller) and “Interpretation of the Petition Clause must be guided by the objectives and aspirations that underlie the right” (Guarnieri). Re­ gardless, the IRS then penalized Schulz, the N.D.N.Y. held the forerunners were fully, fairly and completely litigated and the 2d Circuit did not respond to Schulz’s argument re Heller and Guarnieri. The questions presented are: Whether a forerunner to this case, We The People, et al. u. United States, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20409 (D.D.C. 2005) aff’d 485 F.3d 140 (2007, D.C. Cir.) was QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued fully, fairly and completely litigated given that Court’s decision not to consider the historical scope and pur­ pose of the Petition Clause but, instead, to rely on two inapplicable cases (.Minnesota v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 and Smith v. Arkansas, 441 U.S. 463) in concluding gov­ ernment was not obligated to respond to the organiza­ tion’s Petitions for Redress. And, whether the other forerunner, United States v. We The People, et al., 529 F. Supp. 2d 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) aff’d 517 F.3d 606 (2d Cir., 2008) (Schulz 1) was fully, fairly and completely litigated given that Court’s decision to avoid Defendants’ Petition Clause argu­ ment altogether and instead declare the Withholding Petition was subject to penalty. And, if not fully, fairly and completely litigated, whether the Court should vacate the Summary Order below and the final decisions and judgments in said forerunners and remand to the D.C. Circuit in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 579 and Bor­ ough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379.