Subject: Formal Request for Constitutional and Common Law Guidance and Support in Pursuing Class Action Redress on Behalf of We the People
To Whom It May Concern: We, sovereign members of We the People of these United States, hereby submit this formal Request for Constitutional and Common Law Guidance to any and all individuals, legal organizations, constitutional scholars, and liberty-centered agencies who claim to uphold the foundational principles of this nation. We request your wisdom, your precedent, and your counsel — not your permission.
This is not a demand, nor a plea for validation. It is a formal, lawful request for assistance in formulating and filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of We the People — one which seeks to challenge systemic violations of constitutional law, natural rights, and due process.
Simultaneously, we request guidance on the lawful re-establishment of The People’s Court, should such remedy be denied or rendered inaccessible through conventional statutory channels. This Court, established in principle through natural law, common law, and our founding documents, stands as the final safeguard when all other avenues of justice fail.
We declare that we are fully aware that The People’s Court stands above the federal judiciary and outside the jurisdiction of the administrative courts that have become the de facto arbiters of modern legal interpretation. We also affirm our understanding that The People’s Court is the only court with proper jurisdiction to adjudicate matters of this magnitude, as it is grounded not in statutory overreach but in the original constitutional contract between free people and limited government. The fact that this court’s authority has been intentionally obscured from public knowledge is, in itself, an actionable violation — one that has deprived generations of Americans of their rightful access to justice, remedy, and lawful self-governance.
We recognize that reclaiming this forum is no simple task. The legal and procedural knowledge necessary to pursue a class action of this scope — and to reconvene The People’s Court if necessary — has been deliberately hidden beneath centuries of legalese, sealed behind paywalls, and distorted by institutions with no incentive to share it. That is precisely why we are reaching out: to identify those with the constitutional clarity, legal acumen, and moral conviction to:
- Assist in formulating and filing a class action lawsuit rooted in the Constitution and common law, representing the People as the injured party - Provide guidance on identifying proper legal defendants, causes of action, and procedural strategy - Document constitutional violations by agencies, institutions, or individuals who have acted outside their lawful authority - Prepare for the eventuality that, should these remedies be denied, the People’s Court must be reconvened to serve as the final venue of lawful remedy - Help structure this process so that it remains within the boundaries of legitimate conduct, withstands scrutiny, and invites accountability
This is not about rebellion. It is about restoration. This is not about breaking the law. It is about reclaiming the law. This is not about chaos. It is about accountability — something that has become foreign to those who now govern from above, rather than serve from below.
Foundational Legal Standing for This Action:
- The Declaration of Independence explicitly grants the People the right to alter or abolish any form of government destructive to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. - The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to trial by jury in common law, affirming the existence and authority of courts independent of legislative or administrative control. - Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) established that sovereignty resides with the People, not with the states or federal government. - Common law maxims support that all valid authority derives from the People’s consent, and that contracts made through deception, force, or ignorance are void. - Historical precedents of Citizen Grand Juries and Courts of Record provide functional templates for People-led courts outside statutory interference.
Modern Legal Precedents That Support This Position:
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024): Overturned the long-standing doctrine of Chevron deference, restoring judicial responsibility to interpret the law and limiting the unchecked power of federal agencies. This ruling affirms that courts — not unelected bureaucrats — have the final say in what the law means, thereby reinforcing the separation of powers and the constitutional role of the judiciary. - United States v. Scott (1975), Ex parte Tammen (1977), Stubbs v. Commissioner, and United States v. Benson (2007): Legal challenges brought forth regarding the validity of the 16th Amendment were dismissed on procedural grounds rather than on the merits. These cases serve as key examples of how courts have consistently avoided addressing foundational constitutional violations, particularly those rooted in improper ratification processes. - U.S. v. Lopez (1995): Held that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause by criminalizing gun possession in school zones. This decision reestablished a vital boundary on federal power, emphasizing that not all activities can be federally regulated simply by invoking interstate commerce. - NFIB v. Sebelius (2012): Ruled that while Congress could impose a tax penalty for lack of health insurance under its taxing power, it could not coerce states into expanding Medicaid by threatening existing funding. This decision reinforced the constitutional limitation on using federal funds to force state compliance. - West Virginia v. EPA (2022): Limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate emissions without clear congressional authorization, reinforcing that regulatory agencies cannot invent authority not explicitly granted by statute. - Bond v. United States (2011): Reaffirmed the principle that individual citizens have standing to challenge federal laws that violate constitutional limits — asserting that the Constitution protects not just states, but individuals, from federal overreach. - Moore v. United States (2024): Challenged the constitutionality of taxing unrealized income under the 16th Amendment. Although the Supreme Court upheld the tax provision, the case reignited debate over federal taxation power and the limits of the 16th Amendment — spotlighting the tension between constitutional text and modern financial enforcement. - Kelo v. City of New London (2005): Exposed how government entities have corrupted Eminent Domain by distorting the meaning of “public use” to justify transferring land from one private owner to another, violating the Fifth Amendment and undermining the foundational concept of property rights. - The Law That Never Was (Referenced Research): Though not a court case, this investigative work by Bill Benson offers comprehensive documentation of ratification irregularities associated with the 16th Amendment, forming the foundation for past challenges cited above.
Matters of Grievance to Be Addressed in this Suit Include, But Are Not Limited To:
- The violation of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right has been systematically eroded through mass surveillance (e.g., NSA warrantless data collection), digital tracking (e.g., geofencing and facial recognition), biometric intrusion (e.g., TSA airport screenings), unlawful checkpoints, no-knock raids, civil asset forfeiture without charges, and data collection through third-party platforms like social media or cell providers without proper jurisdiction or proper court orders. - The abuse of eminent domain, where private property is seized not for legitimate public use, but for corporate gain, tax revenue increases, or politically motivated development projects. - The overreach of federal power beyond constitutional limits, such as the imposition of federal mandates on health, education, and commerce through executive orders, without lawful legislation or consent by the states or the People. - The unlawful replacement of common law with administrative law, as seen in family courts, tax courts, and other administrative forums that deny jury trials and operate under corporate codes rather than the Constitution — often making citizens defendants in contract-based enforcement systems they never knowingly entered. - The criminalization of peaceful noncompliance, as seen in cases where individuals are arrested or fined for refusing to wear masks, close their businesses, decline vaccines, or homeschool their children without state approval. - The inversion of justice, where whistle blowers are exiled, or worse, peaceful protesters are jailed, but officials who violate public trust are shielded by qualified immunity or pardoned within their own party. - The conversion of natural rights into government-issued privileges, such as the requirement for licenses to collect rainwater, travel freely, homeschool, carry self-defense tools, or earn a living through independent trade, despite those being unalienable rights. - The deceptive redefinition of legal terms, such as the transformation of "driver" (as one engaged in commerce) to include all private citizens, or the term "voluntary" in tax filings implying consent where none is truly given. - The systematic erosion of state and individual sovereignty through statutory trickery, such as federal education or healthcare funding being tied to compliance with federal regulations, effectively coercing states into federal mandates in exchange for financial survival. - The deliberate and institutionalized mis-education of generations, where civic and constitutional education has been replaced by federalized curriculum promoting compliance over critical thought. Generations now emerge unaware of their rights, their status as sovereigns, or how to seek lawful remedy. - The quiet conversion of government offices into corporate entities, as demonstrated by the registration of state agencies and local governments with DUNS numbers, effectively restructuring them to function under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as private businesses, rather than public servants. - The manipulation of state and local governments via conditional funding, such as school districts enforcing federal ideology to retain grants, or local law enforcement departments prioritizing federal programs (like civil asset seizures) that reward compliance with federal priorities over local will. - The use of taxpayer dollars to enforce unconstitutional mandates, such as IRS enforcement against citizens without due process, funding of foreign conflicts without congressional declarations of war, and the use of domestic intelligence agencies to surveil peaceful citizens under the guise of public safety. - The passage of Amendments and statutes outside the proper channels, including legislative actions that effectively nullify or rewrite foundational principles (e.g., the Patriot Act), or state/federal amendments passed without the mandatory convention procedures dictated by Article V of the Constitution. A prime example is the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income taxation without apportionment among the states. Historical records show at least seven states failed to ratify it properly, others altered the language, and yet the Secretary of State declared it ratified, a process that has never been lawfully scrutinized by the courts. Prior legal challenges, cited above, were rejected not on the merits of the constitutional question, but on procedural grounds. In short, the court didn't even get to the heart of the constitutional question, they rejected it because of how it was brought, not because of what it argued. This kind of dismissal can often be used to avoid ruling on controversial or precedent-setting matters. - The reclassification of living individuals as corporate persons, such as through the issuance of birth certificates and Social Security numbers which create a legal entity used for taxation and legal liability, separate from the living man or woman without the informed consent or understanding of the parents or individual. - The creation and exploitation of bonded trust accounts (straw-man identities), in which our Social Security accounts, tied to our names in all-capital letters, are used in financial markets and debt instruments while the living person has no access to or benefit from these transactions, a system veiled behind commercial law, securities instruments, and government silence. A system created solely to confiscate the "fruits of our labor".
These are not conspiracy theories. They are infiltrated systems woven into the very structure of our lives. Embedded in our educational institutions, our employment policies, our financial systems, our healthcare infrastructure, and our government agencies. They are passed off as 'compliance,' 'procedure,' or 'modernization', but they are designed to obscure, extract, and enslave.
They are built into our laws and our bureaucracies. They exist in the silent signatures of legislation, in executive orders signed behind closed doors, and in votes cast by public servants who swore to serve us but now serve corporations and special interest groups. Every defendant to this class action lawsuit can be identified by their legislative history, their policy enforcement, and their willful neglect of duty.
Ironically, the same policing systems that have been weaponized against The People are also policing the very institutions that gave them those powers, making us both the watched and the watchers. That contradiction alone is reason enough to demand remedy. We see it clearly, and we can no longer afford to ignore the clear evidence of it, especially when it's so evident.
To those who stand as constitutional purists, legal advocates, sheriffs, judges, attorneys, and liberty-based organizations: we are asking for partnership. Not to overthrow, but to oversee. To serve as guides, educators, and constitutional referees as We the People begin to restore the checks and balances that have been systematically stripped away.
We seek neither violence nor anarchy. We seek remedy and the rightful re-establishment of justice under our original founding law, whether through the courts you now serve, or the one We the People will lawfully reconvene if you are unsuccessful.
If you truly serve The People, then stand with us now. Help us initiate, structure, and lawfully pursue this class action lawsuit as a unified front. Let this be the moment you choose to serve not just a system, but the truth at the heart of it. We ask for your professional support, and in return, we pledge our full and unwavering commitment to carry this effort to its rightful conclusion.
We, the undersigned, will organize. We will gather signatures, inform our communities, and mobilize grassroots support with clarity and resolve. We are not asking for charity — we are offering collaboration. The strength of the People lies not in their silence, but in their lawful unity, and we are ready.
Signed in Good Faith,We the People (Signature Page Attached)