The Online Version
of the
Redress of Grievances
Presented to the Three Branches of United States Government
FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - Tuesday, October 13, 1998
The following legal brief has been served upon the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of the United States government, in accordance with the provisions of the United States Constitution, First Amendment "absolute" right, to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The serving of Case No.: No. 18-9-456372-9 upon the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of United States government, and the public posting of this notice will be sufficient under the First Amendment to require an immediate, timely, and public response by the parties served.
The individuals in the United States government that have been officially served with this First Amendment Constitutional Redress of Grievances are; for the Executive Branch, President William Jefferson Clinton and the White House Staff; for the Legislative Branch, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Representative John Conyers from the House Judiciary Committee; for the Judicial Branch, the Attorney General of the United States and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Other parties notified, on or about the same time, includes' the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, NBC Nightly News (Tom Brokaw) and their Albuquerque, New Mexico affiliate, KOB Channel 4 News.
There are 406+/- charges of Conspiracy to Committ Treason and/or Treason itself, being attested to and brought forth against Members of Congress within these redress of grievances.
Dated this 5th Day of October, 1998 - Mailed on October 7, 1998
A copy of this case number is on file at the address shown below and at the government branches mentioned. Any inquiries to the below mentioned address should include a Self Addressed Stamped Envelope to insure a reply.
Sherwood C. Ensey
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
In re the Matter of:
We the People, i.e., Sherwood C Ensey, et al.,
Petitioner(s),
and
The Government of the United States of America, The Executive, Legislative
and Judicial Branches and the Members thereof, et al.,
Respondent(s)
FIRST AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
Constitutional petition from We the People to the United States Federal
government for redress of grievances as constitutionally provided for by
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of...or the right
of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I. Introduction
"I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation
of our present federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which
it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends,
and not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies."
Thomas Jefferson, 1799
This First Amendment "absolute" constitutional legal right, to redress of grievances is hereby served by We the People, i.e., Sherwood C. Ensey, et al., upon the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches of Government, of the United States of America, and upon any and/or all other applicable, and/or interested parties, et al., that are a party and/or parties to these just and rightful grievances.
This official petition of redress of grievances, is hereby filed by We the People, also known as the Sherwood C. Ensey family, his ancestors and heirs, past and present, and/or other founding American families of the American Revolutionary period, their ancestors and heirs, past and present, and/or all the rest of the masses of other American citizens of these United States of America, their American ancestors and heirs, past and present, and/or any other interested people and/or parties who consider themselves a legitimate party and/or parties, et al., to these constitutionally lawful and just grievances. This paragraph shall be construed as legitimately meeting all of the constitutional and only necessary requirements for petition of redress of grievances, per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; of the right of the people to petition the government of the United States of America for a redress of grievances, and that any and all other requirements, for petition of redress of grievances, is automatically and constitutionally invalidated, by the direct and specific legal order of the Constitution, that Congress shall make no law...abridging the right of the people…to petition the government for a redress of grievances; i.e., in other words, that no other requirement and/or stipulation shall be made law, and/or required by the Congress and/or any other branch of the United States government, in order to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It is hereby further provided, that this redress of grievances is in
accordance with the "declaratory" and "restrictive"
clauses found in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, as they
were sent to the several States, passed by the several States, adopted by
the several States, and then ratified by them. These essential "declaratory"
and "restrictive" clauses, are the foundation on which the Constitution,
and therefore the Republican Form of Government of the United States was
to have been built and maintained (preserved). On the construction of these
founding "republican" principles and rights enumerated to in the
United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson wrote the
following highly respected opinions:
"It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will
bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning
to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all
the others useless." Thomas Jefferson, 1791
"The general rule, in the construction of instruments, [is] to leave no words merely useless, for which any rational meaning can be found." Thomas Jefferson, 1791
"The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution
of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide
for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," and
"to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of
the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to
the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power
by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary
only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves
to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be taken as to destroy the whole
residue of that instrument." Thomas Jefferson, 1798
This redress of grievances also places a special importance and emphasis,
on the literally unknown, and purposely hidden away, Preamble to the United
States Bill of Rights, which was, and still is an integral part of the legal
power and authority of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is as much a part of the Bill of Rights,
as Freedom of Speech is to the First Amendment of that document. It is the
power and authority of the wording within the Preamble to the Bill of Rights,
that spells out, what those who framed the Constitution and Bill of Rights
had in mind when they penned those two great documents of freedom and liberties.
What the wording spells out, is that there are "absolutes" in
both the main body of the Constitution, and in the Bill of Rights.
One of these "absolutes" is commonly referred to as the "declaratory" clauses of the Constitution and Bill of rights. The "declaratory" clauses contain the essential and therefore necessary, basic American human rights and "republican" principles of government, which the American people are constitutionally entitled to have. Further that those basic American human rights of the people, and the "republican" principles necessary for the ordained and established form of the Republican Form of Government, must be in good working order. And further, that those rights and principles are to be supported and maintained as constitutionally ordained and established in the United States Constitution of 1787. It is hereby further affirmed by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, that the people and their government are entitled to a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are without, abridgments, misconstruction, and abuse by forces that are hostile to those basic American human rights and "republican" principles of government, as ordained and established in the United States Constitution.
Another of those "absolutes," is that the people are to always have a set of basic constitutional legal checks in place, that will always prevent the abuse, abridgment, and misconstruction of the peoples "declaratory" constitutional rights by those in power, and these are known as the protective "restrictive" clauses in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, i.e., the necessary constitutional protection to prevent Congress and/or others in power from abusing, misconstructing, and/or abridging, the basic "declaratory" rights and "republican" principles of the United States Constitution, the people, and the Republican Form of Government thereof.
These necessary and essential "declaratory" and "restrictive" clauses form the republican principles and rights of United States government and society, and they are clearly enumerated to in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights spells out that there are mandatory "declaratory" and "restrictive" clauses in both the main body of the Constitution, as well as in the Bill of Rights itself. Following is the Preamble to the United States Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their ADOPTING the CONSTITUTION expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
"It is my belief that there are "absolutes" in our
Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew
what words meant, and meant their prohibitions to be "absolute."
Hugo Black, United States Supreme Court Justice - Limits on the power
of Congress and the courts to reinterpret the Constitution
The following terms and/or definitions, with their source, are hereby
entered into testimony as part of this redress of grievances:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
1998; the definition for the term declaratory as used in
the Law is a. Setting forth that which is the law b. Explaining a
legal interpretation or right; a Declarative statement.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition 1998; the definition for the term restrictive is; of or relating to restriction; serving to restrict; limiting; a clause that limits or restricts its meaning.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition 1998; the definition for the term misconstruction is anything that would give an inaccurate explanation and/or interpretation; a faulty construction, especially of a sentence or clause.
It is hereby further stated, that the opening clause of the First Article of the Bill of Rights, is such a "declaratory" and "restrictive clause," i.e., Congress shall make no law. Whereas, the opening clause clearly and steadfastly limits and restricts Congress, in any and all matters relating to the "absolute" basic American human rights and principles enumerated to in the First Amendment, and elsewhere in the Constitution as necessary to the relationship of those rights and "republican" principles. The constitutional constraint is therefore placed on Congress, that under this opening clause to the First Amendment, Congress is not to create and/or make any law, (and that includes, but is not limited to proposing, legislating, and/or passing any type of law(s)), that will in any type of manner whatsoever, be hostile to and/or harm those basic American human rights and "republican" principles ordained and established in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights; And further, that Congress shall by order of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, shall be prohibited from abusing, abridging, and misconstructing those rights and "republican" principles, in any manner whatsoever. Note: Such proposals and or passage of legislation and/or laws, also includes and is not limited to, any and all types of congressional legislation, bills, unwritten law, form of law, decree, order, legal process, constitutional law, common law, statute law, ordinance, civil law, legal code, corpus juris, and/or any other law that may lead to, or result in, any type of constitutional amendment and/or any act that may, and/or will, and/or could create laws that may, and/or will, directly or indirectly, interfere with and/or abridge, the basic American rights enumerated to in the First Article of the Bill of Rights.
There are no difficult questions for the Courts to answer, and no lengthy legal debates needed over "intent" of meaning in regards to the opening wording in that first clause of the First Amendment. The wording of the first clause of the First Article is clearly written and it is precise in what it states to Congress, in regards to the "declaratory" and "restrictive" rights that are enumerated therein. It is the constitutional "declaratory" and "restrictive clause," that strictly prohibits Congress in regards to the First Article, by constitutionally ordering that Congress shall make no law... interfering with, misconstructing, and/or abridging the rights in that article. It is therefore a mandatory constitutional requirement of all members of Congress, and all those within and under the authority of the United States Constitution, to support obey, uphold, protect, and defend all of those "declaratory" rights and restrictions, just as they are intended and stated in the Constitution and within the First Article of the Bill of Rights. There can be no argument; the "declaratory" and "restrictive" rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are clear in both their meaning and interpretation. The people are to have certain guaranteed rights and "republican" principles, and these rights and principles are not to be abused, misconstructed, and/or abridged in any manner by those in the United States government, and in a large degree to those outside of government. It is also the obligation of all Americans, no matter what their place in United States society, to support, uphold, obey, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Thomas Jefferson gave an opinion in 1791, on just what Congress can and cannot do in regards to providing for the general welfare, and that is, "they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them (Congress) up straitly within the enumerated powers and those which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." Thomas Jefferson, 1823
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the government, and the laws of the United States are therefore, not at the mere discretionary whim of Congress and others in government to use as they please. Congress and the government is not ad libitum to use the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they like, as there are constitutionally established boundaries that Congress and others in government must stay within. Many of these provisions also apply to others outside of government. A further discussion on the issue of ad libitum and the Congress and government of the United States can be found in Appendix A, page 62-92, of this redress of grievances.
It is the "declaratory" and "restrictive" clauses found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that contain the essential essence of the constitutional instructions, whereby the "absolute rights" empowering the real Freedoms and Liberties of all Americans is found. It is within these "declaratory" and "restrictive clauses," that the true republic can be found, and without those necessary and important clauses, there can be no true and real republic, there can only be a Federalist Run State government.
Failure of, and by, an member in Congress, and/or United States government, and others under obligation by virtue of constitutional authority, to strictly obey, uphold, protect, and defend all of those "declaratory" constitutional rights and restrictions found in the main body of the Constitution and in the specifically declared "absolute" basic rights of the First Article of the Bill of Rights, are committing a high crime against the Constitution of the United States, by virtue of the overriding authority of the Constitution being the Supreme law of the land. Such willful, flagrant, and negligent, and intentional disregard for the absolute authority of the United States Constitution by those individuals in Congress and elsewhere in United States government, and/or other offices of public trust, who have sworn an oath and/or affirmation to protect and defend the Constitution, are by color of the offense(s) they commit or have committed, under the rules of American constitutional common law and justice, to be considered guilty of treasonable offenses. Anything less than to strictly support and properly obey, uphold, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, is to give comfort and aid to the Constitutions enemies, and therefore giving comfort and aid to the enemies of the United States of America, and the people therein residing. Note: The term enemy as used by those who framed the Constitution, means; Something destructive or injurious in its effects, i.e., something that is hostile to the intended and/or true meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Be it further known to any and all parties named herein, that Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Constitution affirms the strict constitutional duties of those holding offices of public trust; The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as A Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Note: The term to support this Constitution, under those who framed it, has an intent and meaning, that literally means to uphold and obey the Constitution.
We the People of the United States of America, therefore, and in Order to preserve a more perfect Union, and to restore the true republic and Constitution of the United States of America to its full glory, and to fully re-establish constitutional "republican" Justice with equality and fairness for all the people, and to promote and secure the Blessings of Liberty and Peace to ourselves and our Posterity, do hereby submit this redress of grievances to the government of the United States of America, for a full and complete reparation and restoration of all basic "declaratory" and "restrictive" constitutional rights and "republican" principles, as ordained and established in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and as was fully intended and meant by the framers who authored those great documents of "republican" equality and fairness for all Americans.
These immortal and very important words of Thomas Jefferson, expressed on March 28, 1811, continue to ring loud and true today; "The last hope of human liberty rests on us… If we find our government in all its branches rushing headlong, like our predecessors, into the arms of monarchy, if we find them violating our dearest rights, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion, civil or religious, or opening on our peace of mind or personal safety the sluices of terrorism, if we see them raising standing armies, when the absence of all other danger points to these as the sole objects on which they are employed, then indeed let us withdraw and call the nation to its tents."
Appendix A, page 62-92, is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this redress of grievances.
Continue with First Amendment Constitutional Redress of Grievances, part 2.
Important Redress of Grievances Information!
Case No. 18-9-456372-9
The above First Amendment legal brief [Redress of Grievances],
has been served upon the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of
the United States government, in accordance with the provisions of the United
States Constitution, First Amendment "absolute" right, to petition
the government for a Redress of Grievances. The paperwork was signed and
completed on October 5, 1998, and mailed to all concerned parties on October
7, 1998. The original document, in legal paper form, is 95 pages in length.
An HTML copy of this First Amendment legal brief, is located by following
the Redress of Grievances links found on this page.
The serving of Case No.: No. 18-9-456372-9 upon the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of United States government, and the public posting of the notice will be sufficient under the First Amendment to require an immediate, timely, and public response by the parties served.
The individuals in the United States government that have been officially served with this First Amendment Constitutional Redress of Grievances, are; for the Executive Branch, President William Jefferson Clinton and the White House Staff; for the Legislative Branch, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Representative John Conyers from the House Judiciary Committee; for the Judicial Branch, the Attorney General of the United States and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Other parties notified, on or about the same time, includes' the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida [They have since declined to become involved - No reason mentioned], NBC Nightly Newss (Tom Brokaw) and their Albuquerque, New Mexico affiliate, KOB Channel 4 News. Channel 4 has not responded to us on this particular issue.
Copies of the Redress of Grievances, has also gone to American's United for the Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC, and to Joe Conason, Political Editor for the New York Observer, New York, New York. American's United, declined to become involved as the breadth and scope of the Redress of Grievances was too much for them to handle. Joe Conason with the New York Observer has yet to respond to any of the information sent to him.
AS OF: March 22, 1999, no one from any of the three branches of United States government has responded to any of the Redress of Grievances issues, except for Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and in a response dated October 19, 1998, his only reply to the Redress of Grievances, was: "I appreciate your concern and will continue to monitor this issue. I will also keep your concerns in mind as I consider other legislation introduced in the Senate." The answer is nothing but political rhetoric and offers NO real answers to issues and questions raised by the Redress of Grievances. This is not much of a response to the people of America, and to the people in New Mexico, who Senator Bingaman is supposed to be representing, especially considering the fact that his office was hand delivered a 95 page legal brief of important issues and questions about America. The Redress of Grievances contains many key and critical questions and issues about the operational viability of the United States Constitution and Republican Form of Government.
The failure of United States Senator Jeff Bingaman to specifically address the important and critical issues and questions raised in the Redress of Grievances, is a clear signal that this is yet another United States Senator, that is not the least bit interested in performing his constitutional duties to the people of New Mexico or to the rest of the citizens of the United States. His obligation to support the United States Constitution under the First Amendment right of Redress of Grievances is clear, and yet he has failed to answer the issues and questions posed to him and the Legislative Branch of Government.
There are also 406+/- charges of Conspiracy to Committ Treason and/or Treason itself, being attested to and brought forth, against many members of both Houses of Congress within these Redress of Grievances. These are very serious charges and are centered around a continuing conspiracy to "overthrow" the United States Constitution and the government therein.
This Redress of Grievances is very important from a constitutional standpoint and from the perspective of, do we currently have the "true" constitutional Republican Form of Government, as was intended and meant by the framers and founders of the United States of America? This is a critically important issue and question for the people of New Mexico and the rest of America, because this "true" constitutional Republican Form of Government, is the only form of government authorized by the United States Constitution! No other from of government may be used anywhere in the United States.
There is enough evidence and already readily available proof to indicate, that the true and correct form of Republican Government that we are supposed to have in the United States, as enumerated by the duly ordained and established United States Constitution of 1787, has already been conveniently replaced by a Federalist Run State Government.
How can this be, you ask?
There are certain constitutional principles and rights that must be in place and working for the United States to have a properly functioning and maintained Republican Form of Government. One of those most important and constitutional "republican" principles and rights, is the "absolute" right of the masses of people, to have a fair and adequate place of Representation within their government. As called for by the United States Constitution and those who framed it, this fair and equal Representation in Congress, is to be one member in the House of Representatives for every 30,000 people in the United States. Remember, one of the most basic concepts and principles that the United States was founded on, was that of fair and equal representation within government.
There is currently one member in the House of Representatives, for approximately every 750,000 people in the United States. One member in the House of Representatives for every 750,000 people, is far from the type of equal and fair Representation that was intended by the framers and founders of the United States. The framers of the Constitution were extremely firm in their resolve, that Representation in the House should remain at one member for every 30,000 people.
Several times at the outset and birth of this Nation, those that were"hostile" to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution and who were opposed to there being one member in the House for every 30,000 people, contested with continual vigor and zeal this number for Representation in the House. Those that were in power and control, clearly felt that this number, would give too great of an advantage to the common people's voice in government, and that was not something that could, or would be tolerated. Ever since that time, one conservative and radical right Congress after another, has attacked the Constitution with the clear intent of denying to the people, their constitutional principle and right to have an effective voice in United States government. As a result of those 200 years of clearly "hostile" attacks on the true intent and meaning of the Constitution by one conservative and radical right Congress after another, the masses of people in the United States, in 1999, continue to have no clear and effective voice in their government.
If the people did [do] have a clear and effective voice in government, then why don't the people have the Representation in the House of Representatives that was intended and meant by the Constitution, and those who framed it? The people don't have that voice in government, because those in power and control don't want the people to have that constitutional voice. There are other constitutional "republican" principles and rights that are just as necessary and essential to the Republican Form of Government, but none so clearly indicates how far America has moved to the fascist and "hostile" right, and away from the true form of Republican Government that the United States is to have, than that of how under represented the voice of the people are in Congress.
This is one reason why this Redress of Grievances is so important, and why the United States government MUST acknowledge it. We either have a truly constitutional and operational Republican Form of Government, as it was intended and meant by those who framed the United States Constitution, or we don't, and if we don't have that exact form of government, then we do not have a government that is authorized by the Supreme Law of the land. It is the true and correct Republican Form of Government, established and working in harmony, with the ordained and established republican principles and rights enumerated in the Constitution, that makes the United States a republic. Anything less than that, and the United States is not a true constitutional republic, only a shadow of what it is supposed to be, and operating in illegality of how it should be operating. The Redress of Grievances is merely asking those in Congress and elsewhere in the United States, to tell the people the truth and to set the record straight - do we or don't we have the type of government as was intended and meant by the framers of the Constitution.
Members of Congress and the other branches of United States government, continue to ignore this First Amendment constitutional right to a Redress of Grievances. Can it be that this Redress of Grievances, all too clearly shows to the American people and to the rest of the World what the United States government is really afraid to acknowledge, and that is that the issues and questions raised in the 95 page Redress of Grievances is the truth? Find out for yourself today, by reading the Redress of Grievances, and by educating yourself on the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
What is it that those in the United States government are so afraid of, that they can't simply address and answer the issues and questions put before them? Congress and others in government need to address the critical issues and questions raised in the Redress of Grievances, and if they can't or they just simply refuse to, then we know for certain that the voices of the people are of no real importance to those in government. The people of the United States are owed some answers, and it's about time that those in government started giving us those answers!
