Unfortunately, as I have often argued, including in my speech to the WTP national conference March 31 http://www.constitution.org/col/jdr/gml2007.ppt , the case has been wrongly argued, so that the court is essentially correct on the main point of whether the Right to Petition carries a right to get an answer. As for "sovereign immunity", that doctrine and the precedents cited to support it are in conflict with the ancient right of /quo warranto/, which would be a Ninth Amendment right, not a First Amendment right. See *Presumption of Nonauthority and Unenumerated Rights*, http://www.constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.htm . But the opinion in this case show how the /quo warranto/ right and the presumption of nonauthority has been effectively subverted and made inaccessible as a remedy.
Now of course the courts cannot be expected to make a just decision on this issue even if it were argued correctly. It's main value is as political theater, to demonstrate to those still on the sidelines that government is off the constitutional track, and that we can no longer look to the courts for remedies. However, it doesn't help when critics can say, "You lost because it wasn't argued competently." Mark Lane is a good guy, but he was out of his depth for this case. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: WTP lawsuit Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:12:41 -0500 From: Larry Becraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here is the recent decision in the WTP "right to petition" lawsuit: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5359a.pdf -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
