Petition Closed

August 21, 2013
1) The First Amendment right to peaceably assemble,
and to petition Government for redress of grievances
- two different simply defined rights which are also
two parts of a compound right - are precious rights
which are; in the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"formidable to Tyrants only."
2) People typically use the right to petition, as well as
its avuncular right to peaceably assemble (to gather
signatures from total strangers, to network among
the general public, to make Facebook friends, and to
proactively market their causes to a widening audience)
when all other means of recourse have been exhausted.
3) Law-abiding citizens use the right to petition in order to
throw themselves upon the mercy of the public, whenever
any person has his or her back against the wall; in order
to express solidarity and to be loyal to the call of
4) The right to petition Government for a solution to problems
is Constitutionally useful, as one primary reason for
its very existence, in the context of petitioning for
clemency in the form of reprieves and pardons.
5) Our Founding Fathers knew that even at their best, the
courts of the United States - like any other human
contraption - are imperfect.
6) Knowing of this human factor of imperfection in our courts,
the framers wisely listed, in the first section following the
Oath of Office clause in our Constitution, the Presidential
"power to grant Reprieves and pardons for offences*
against the United States." The fact that this empowerment
follows the Oath of Office requirement in sequence is not
exactly a meaningless oversight. This order indicates strongly
that without this power to grant reprieves and pardons, the
President would be utterly unable to defend the Constitution
whenever the President were to be confronted with the fact
that the Courts of the United States have violated the
Constitution in any respect.
7) The power of the President to grant Reprieves and pardons
has a purpose far more glorious and grand than that of conferring
mercy upon individuals who might seem bereft of it, or upon
others who might be cagey enough to manipulate their way
out of harm's way after having actionably harmed others.
That purpose is to grease the cylinders of Constitutional
checks and balances, in order to prevent the national engine of
democracy from seizing up. This purpose relates not only to
the ability of the Executive branch to impose a necessary check
upon violations by the Judiciary without checkmating the
independence of the Judicial branch; but also to maintaining
civilian oversight over the military, and preventing military
incursions upon civilian powers of government and civil rights.
(We may have witnessed exactly such a usurpation in the
Manning case, where questions can be raised on behalf of
preservation of First Amendment rights which might well
quash the case and the recent conviction entirely.**)
8 ) Without a Constitutional empowerment in the first place which
enables the President to grant Reprieves and pardons - or
in the alternative, in the absence of any positive exercise of
this power by the Executive Branch of the Federal government
or that of any State, we will in either case suffer the hardships
of the imposition of an unbalanced Government upon us, due
to the deprivation of this "check and balance" of the Executive
branch upon an unrestrained Judiciary. Thereby we have the
unbridled power of any Court in the United States to violate any
or all parts of the Constitution at will, in a madhouse manner.
That is the situation America indeed faces today, as the prosecutors,
the courts and court-related agencies of the United States have
been behaving in this unrestrained way for years, constantly,
and with increasing intensity and brazen impunity.
9) As the behavior of American courts and prosecutors becomes
ever increasingly defiant of the Constitution, public wrath and
indignation has understandably mounted in the wake of these
blatant and erratic judicial infringements; and has followed the
natural course of the most peaceful and reasonable avenue of
non-despairing resistance to wrongful behavior. Public outrage
has tended to gravitate toward expressing itself in the form of
explicit petitions painstakingly constructed, as well as peaceable
gathering of like-minded people to work as activists on behalf
of the cause of Justice itself.
10) Without the right to petition Government, the Presidential power
to grant Reprieves and pardons would be without any basis for
any genesis in any specific case, and would be based entirely
on a foundation of randomness or on political connectedness.
Thus a virtually unchecked Judicial branch will have achieved
rampant roughshod supremacy over the Executive branch as
well as Congress; and will be in a position to grant to itself
a dictatorship on any whim which occurs to it. This would
render the Constitution of the United States without any torque
or traction; and would render those who ever attempt to
invoke the Constitution against any violations committed
against it, a laughingstock to both friend and foe alike.
In fact, in enough instances to form a discernible and palpable
pattern of tyranny, this has already happened and has become
the predominating pattern in the United States, which has
become a democracy only in name and window-dressing
hollow trappings. Many have noticed this dismal failure of
freedom, but the guesses as to why this has happened have
ranged wildly across the board. Now you know the reason why.
11) The right to petition Government for redress of grievances, and the
right to peacefully associate with our fellow human beings
has been taken from the people of the United States and similarly
misruled nations, under the guise of political correctness;
by the actions, decrees, and underhanded and almost entirely
covert electronic spying and throttling conducted by courts
and other Government agencies: both civilian and military, and
including agencies which can be described as both privately-owned
and at least partially under the control of the Governments of
other countries.
12) Congress has a sworn obligation, under penalty of felony perjury
with respect to the Oath of Office, to fully and vigorously investigate
petition throttling without delay and with full co-operation from all
Executive agencies of Government in the United States by order
of the President; and to preserve, protect and defend the right
of the people to peaceably assemble (including the unmentored
and non-micromanaged sending of Friend requests, messages,
petition-signatures, postings and comments on Facebook)
and to petition Government for redress of grievances without
throttling, blocking, rollback of signatures or other forms of
electronic sabotage of the First Amendment. This policy of
overpolicing of electronic social media is of course a form of
crime-conjuring, and is also a violation of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution,
as well as the Due Process and ex post facto clauses of
the Constitution. Raising the issue of private domain does
not make this legal, unless social media managers can step
forward to identify themselves to Congress and prove that they
are not associated with or paid by Government to conduct this
ridiculous micromanaging of free speech to the point where it
no longer exists.
13) The right to peaceably assemble and to petition Government for
redress of grievances is not only a necessary foundation for the
non-corrupt, proper and timely exercise of the power of the
Executive branch to grant Reprieves and pardons; it is also the
only bulwark against the same type of unbalanced desperation
which results in civil disorders, political destabilization and
violent revolution which may or may not have a good result.
And it is ironic that this greatest of all possible dangers to the
United States is being marketed to the victims of this pushy
American dictatorship, under the justification and guise of
so-called "security".
14) Only when Congress succeeds at this task of reinvigorating the
entire First Amendment to a sufficiently restorative extent,
will the power of the President to grant Reprieves and pardons
be reactiviated to the point of full and necessary vigorousness.
Only thereby can the checks and balances (or measured
restraints) within our Constitution be restored, so that - as
Lincoln said - that Government of the people, by the people
and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Scott Davis
Committee of 37 Peace Initiative
PO Box 877
Edgmont, PA 19028-0877
* When the Framers of the Constitution of the United States
enacted the power of the President to grant Reprieves and pardons
for offences (offenses) against the United States, they did NOT,
contrary to popular opinion and traditional law school teaching, either
A ) declare or in any way even imply that the offense in relation to any
pardoning episode must necessarily have been committed by the
person on whose behalf a pardon is being sought. Neither did the
Framers even go so far as to B ) declare, assert, mandate or even imply
that the person on whose behalf a Reprieve and pardon is being sought
must necessarily have been convicted or accused of any offense.
Both or either contingencies would create an unjust Constitutional
imperative requiring a strange double-standard to be built into the
pardoning process; which tends to always pardon the guilty and
to condemn the innocent.
It is possible to reasonably construe from both the directness of
the language of the pardoning clause, from the immediate context
and from the general content and history of the Constitution in
entirety, that the offense which is a precursor for any requested
pardon and reprieve may have been committed AGAINST the
person on whose behalf the pardon is being requested;
and that the Reprieve and pardon is an Oath-mandated remedy
for the way in which Government shall have committed any offense
against the Law of the Land. In fact, if we are going to be so
inflexible as to rule out such an interpretation entirely, we might
just as well also point out that the word "offence" no longer exists
in American English spelled as such, which therefore requires us
to void the entire clause on pardons and reprieves. Such a voiding
would be an absurdity; a triumph of inflexibility over common sense
and practicality, of course.
This may seem like a shocking and absurd assertion to many
who are not accustomed to thinking in these terms - however
what is even more shocking and absurd is the bottleneck in
American justice, which has resulted in more fraudulent prosecutions
more false imprisonments, more wrongful takings under color of
authority, more prison suicides, and more lives unjustly wrecked by
judicial abuse of process in the USA than in all other countries in
the free world put together.
** The Bradley Manning case is noted internationally primarily for
the atrocious behavior of the US Government. At this point, the
entire purpose of this security-driven prosecution could be
outweighed by the fact that persisting in such a punitive course
will be more costly to American security than anything ever done
by Manning in the first place; whereas clemency might actually
be the best hope the US Government has of obtaining maximum
restoration of whatever security was breached by Manning. If we
can personify the behavior of the US Government in the Manning
case, it might be depicted somewhat like this: "Oh, who do you
think you are, trying to swat a giant like me on the back with a
fly-swatter? I am going to show you who is boss: watch!
I will jump into this piranha-infested river right now!"
This is the type of behavior which Governments infested by
arrogance and unchecked power can fall into.

Letter to
Probe Petition-Throttling