This press release is being issued by: Alan R. Adaschik, 11484, SW 10 Court, Davie, Florida 33325, (954) 577-3228 Voice, (954) 236-4688 Asplix2@aol.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
On February 6, 2002, Alan R. Adaschik, an ex-Navy Fighter
Pilot and retired Public Servant who worked for the City of Fort
Lauderdale for the past 20 years, and who believes that the General
Agreement on Tariffs & Trade and our resulting membership
in the World Trade Organization (WTO) is unconstitutional, petitioned
his elected representatives in the Federal Government for help
because he believes his constitutional rights have been violated.
Steps taken by Mr. Adaschik to resolve his grievance were writing to members of Congress, appealing directly to the United States Supreme Court, and suing the United States Government in Federal District Court. Mr. Adaschiks lawsuit is presently in limbo, but it is a ruling of an Appeals Court cited by the Defense in its "motion to dismiss" that has convinced him that the Nations Judicial System has stacked the deck against citizens and separated them from their Constitution. Specifically, if a citizen or group of citizens are not permitted to unequivocally challenge the constitutionality of governmental actions in Federal Court, then the Constitution has been rendered dysfunctional for the primary purpose for which it was written; to restrain and control government.
February 6, 2002
President George W. Bush
Dear President Bush:
I am writing to you for your intervention in a matter of grave importance to myself and the citizens of the United States of America.
Our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our government to obey its precepts. Unfortunately, it appears that this is not the case in regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT), passed by Congress in 1994 and our resulting membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). I believe that GATT is unconstitutional. The attached article and lawsuit explains the reasons for my belief. However, this is not why I am writing you.
While it is incumbent upon our government to obey the precepts of our Constitution, it is equally important for government to not violate our rights as citizens. This is especially true when a right is singled out by our Constitution, but even more important, when it is an unalienable right bestowed upon us by our Creator. A government that does so has placed itself above God, above our Constitution, and above the citizens it is supposed to serve.
In 1995, I wrote a number of letters to various Congressmen voicing my concerns about the constitutionality of GATT. The responses I received did nothing to address my concerns. Subsequently, I appealed the matter directly to our Supreme Court under its power of "Original Jurisdiction". My appeal was ignored, but I was told by a court official that the Supreme Court would only consider my complaint if it was brought before it on appeal through a Federal District Court. Therefore, two years ago, I brought my complaint to the attention of the Federal District in the Southern District of Florida. Unfortunately, I am still waiting for a ruling from that Court and at this point, am forced to conclude that none is forthcoming. Not knowing any other mechanism for addressing my grievance, I am now left to conclude that my Constitutional and unalienable right to petition my Government for the redress of grievances has been denied.
I now ask you to intercede in this matter on behalf of my fellow Americans. I believe that it is self-evident that GATT is unconstitutional. I also now believe that it is self-evident that the Federal Government, through our Judicial System, has removed the means for me to have my grievance addressed. This being true, it follows that the Federal Government has violated my 1st Amendment rights and worse, violated an inalienable right granted to me by my Creator. Will you please help me rectify this lamentable and despicable state of affairs. As President, I am sure you appreciate the gravity of this situation and its importance not only to the citizens of this great Nation, but to freedom loving people everywhere.
Thank your for your consideration of this matter.
Alan R. Adaschik
cc: Senator Bob Graham, Senator Bill Nelson, Representative
by Alan R. Adaschik
A constitution is written by citizens to establish the government they live under. The prime purpose of a constitution is to delineate how government will operate and function. Therefore, it is incumbent upon government to abide by the provisions of its Constitution and if it fails to do so, it is an affront to all citizens and it is self-evident that all citizens suffer equally when such offenses occur. To be sure, our government violates a provision of our Constitution, it is the unalienable right of any citizen or any group of citizens to petition our government for redress of this grievance. Unfortunately, in the United States of America, this unalienable right has been taken away.
Following are actions taken by one citizen in an attempt to address the constitutionality of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and our resulting participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). This Nation joined the WTO through an act of Congress in 1994.
In the latter part of 1995, the following letter of appeal was filed with the United States Supreme Court.
On December 1, 1994, the Congress of the United States of America enacted GATT and by doing so our Nation became a member of the WTO. In my opinion, the vote for GATT was unconstitutional because WTO rules and regulations supersede those of Congress and are not subject to definitive review by the Supreme Court as required by the Constitution.
Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution stipulates the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be part; "State" referring to both the States of our Nation and Foreign States or Nations. Therefore, the subordination of Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States of America to a foreign trade organization is a matter where the Supreme Court retains original jurisdiction and may rule upon the actions of Congress without an appeal having been filed.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I do hereby respectfully request that the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution, review and rule upon the constitutionality of the Congressional vote for GATT and America's participation in the World Trade Organization.
The Supreme Court did not respond to the above appeal and as a result, a telephone call was made to Mr. Francis Lorson, Assistant Clerk of the Court to the Supreme Court. Mr. Lorson advised that the Supreme Court only considers cases through the "Appellate" process and if the issue raised in the above appeal were to be addressed, a case would have to be initiated in Federal District Court. However, this does not make sense because only the Supreme Court can make final decisions on issues of constitutionality and as pointed out in the original appeal, the Supreme Court should retain "Original Jurisdiction" in such matters. In any case, on March 2, 2000, the following petition was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The document presented is the filing amended in response to the defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss.
Alan R. Adaschik
William Jefferson Clinton,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTION COMPLAINT
I, Alan R. Adaschik, who resides at 11484 SW 10 Court, Davie, Broward County, Florida 33325-4099, and the Citizens of the United States of America as a class, plaintiffs in the above styled cause, sues defendants; William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States and the United States Congress.
Addresses of defendants
William Jefferson Clinton Denny Hastert Strom Thurmond, Senator
The jurisdiction of this civil action is conferred by Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution which establishes that the judicial Power of the U.S. shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as established by Congress. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is an inferior court established by Congress. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution establishes the judicial power of the Courts shall extend to all Cases , in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, including Laws of the United States and Treaties made. The Supreme Court has declined to address the issue of the constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO as members under its authority of "Original Jurisdiction". An official of the Supreme Court has instructed the Plaintiffs that the proper course of action is to file a complaint in a District Court. The Attorney Pro Se of the Plaintiffs resides in geographical area of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida. This legal action has been filed in said District Court
In accordance with rule 23, (a)(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. the following is true:
a. The member of this class number in the millions.
b. It is self-evident that the questions of law raised in
this action are common to
c. It is self-evident that the claims of the representative
party to this class is
d. The representative party of this class will fairly and
adequately protect the
1. The Attorney Pro Se is a citizen of the United States.
2. The Attorney Pro Se is a registered voter.
3. The Attorney Pro Se educated to the Masters Degree level.
4. The Attorney Pro Se is and honorably discharge Naval Officer
5. The Attorney Pro Se is a Public servant and has been one
6. The Attorney Pro Se record of achievement as a public Servant
7. The Attorney Pro Se is a member of the class, the question
APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
This action is filed under the following Articles of our Constitution:
Article I, Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.
Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution this power.
Article III, Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in One Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Article III, Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a state and citizens of another State; between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between Citizens of the same State claiming lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizen thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.
Article V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both house shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress.
Amendment XVII. The Senate of the United States shall be composed
of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof.
On April 1, 1994, representatives from one-hundred thirteen nations of the world, including those from the United States, met in Marrakech, Morocco to sign the "Final Act Embodying The Results Of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations commonly known as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). By signing the Final Act, our representatives agreed:
· To submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for consideration of their respective competent authorities with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and
· To adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.
On December 1, 1994, Congress enacted the Final Act of the Uruguay round of GATT. Shortly thereafter, President Clinton signed this bill and GATT with all its Agreements, including the one establishing the World Trade Organization, became United States Law.
This legal action is based upon the following Articles of "The Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization, presented in List #1, and upon the Articles of Annex 2, to that Agreement, "Understanding On Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement Of Disputes", presented in List #2.
List #1. Articles from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
Article I. The World Trade Organization (hereafter referred to as "the WTO") is hereby established.
Article II, Paragraph 1. The WTO shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement.
Article II, Paragraph 2. The agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "Multilateral Trade Agreements") are integral parts of this Agreement, binding on all Members.
Article III, Paragraph 3. The WTO shall administer the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter referred to as the "Dispute Settlement Understanding" or "DSU") in Annex 2 to this Agreement.
Article XVI, Paragraph 4. Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements."
Article XVI, Paragraph 5. No reservations may be made in respect of any provision of this Agreement.
List #2. Articles from Annex 2 of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade organization, "Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
Article 1, Paragraph 1. The rules and procedures of this Understanding shall also apply to consultations and the settlement of disputes between Members concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (referred to in this Understanding as the "WTO Agreement") and of this Understanding taken in isolation or in combination with any other covered agreement.
Article 2, Paragraph 1. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is hereby established to administer these rules and procedures.
Article 6, Paragraph 1. If the complaining party so requests, a panel shall be established at the DSB meeting following that at which the request first appears as an item on the DSB's agenda.
Article 7, Paragraph 7. Where the parties to the dispute have failed to develop a mutually satisfactory solution, the panel shall submit its findings in the form of a written report to the DSB.
Article 16, Paragraph 4. Within 60 days after the date of circulation of a panel report to the Members, the report shall be adopted at a DSB meeting unless a party to the dispute formally notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report. If a party has notified its decision to appeal, the report by the panel shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after completion of the appeal.
Complaint #1. Wrongful Assignment of the Legislative Power of Congress
The Uruguay Round of GATT, according to the Articles in List #1, establish the WTO, establish that the Multilateral Trade Agreements, including those in Annexes 1, 2, & 3, are binding upon member nations, and establish that WTO member nations, will without reservation, ensure their laws, regulations, and administrative procedures conform to the obligations as agreed. The Articles in List #2, taken from Annex 2 to the Agreement establishing the WTO, establish a procedure, whereby, if member nations are unable to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution to a dispute or controversy, then the (DSB) may adopt a solution as recommended by a Panel. This adopted ruling, as agreed without reservation, is legally binding upon the disputing parties and all other member nations of the WTO. Therefore, when a Panel ruling is adopted by the DSB, the DSB has performed a legislative act.
Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution states that the legislative powers of our Nation will be vested in Congress. If rulings adopted by the DSB are legislative acts legally binding upon member nations, then a part of the legislative power granted to Congress by the Constitution, is no longer vested in Congress, but instead, has been assigned to the WTO. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to assign any part of its legislative powers to a second party. The wording of Article I, Section 1, is clear, "All legislative powers shall be vested in Congress". If, as has been demonstrated, a portion of the legislative power of Congress is now vested in the WTO, then Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution has been violated. For this reason, GATT and our participation in the WTO as members is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.
Complaint #2. Wrongful Abridgment of the Voting Rights of Citizens
Article I, Sections 1 & 2, of the Constitution provide that the people of each state shall directly elect those who represent them in Congress; our national Legislature. In Complaint #1, it has been established that under the Uruguay Round of GATT, Congress has wrongfully assigned part of its legislative power to the WTO. If the legislative power vested in Congress is divided between Congress and the WTO and, as is the case, United States citizens do not directly vote for WTO representatives, then it follows that the voters of this Nation do not vote for those who exercise the assigned portion of legislative power. If the voting citizens of this Nation no longer vote for those who establish "all" of our laws, then the voting rights of Americans have been abridged in violation of Article I, Sections 1 & 2 of our Constitution. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and our membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.
Complaint #3. Wrongful Assignment of the Power to Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations.
The Uruguay Round of GATT, Article II, Paragraph 1, states that, "The WTO shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement". In contrast, Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution states that, "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power". Nowhere in our Constitution is Congress given authority to assign its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations to a second party or to bestow authority upon that second party to make their own laws, legally binding upon Americans, to carry out execution of their assigned powers. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.
Complaint #4. Wrongful Assignment of the Judicial Power of the Supreme Court.
The Uruguay Round of GATT, through the Articles listed in Item #2, establish a procedure, whereby, if a member nation of the WTO is offended by an existing United States law, that nation can bring this issue or controversy before the DSB for resolution. If the DSB adopts a panel report in favor of the offended Nation, we have agreed, without reservation, to nullify the offending law. Therefore, DSB adopted rulings result in the repeal of United States law. Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution, provides that the judicial power of this Nation shall be vested in our Supreme Court or other inferior courts. Furthermore, Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution provides that the judicial power of this Nation shall in all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, including the Laws of the United States and treaties made or which shall be made; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party, and to Controversies between foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects. Under GATT, these provisions of Article III, Sections 1 & 2, no longer are effective. The Articles listed in Item #2, establish that the DSB of the WTO now retains some of the judicial power vested, by our Constitution, in our Supreme Court. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to assign the judicial power of the Supreme Court to a second party. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and our membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.
Complaint #5. Wrongful Change in Primary Governmental Functions by A Simple Legislative Act
A constitution is sacred to a Nation because of its three fundamental purposes; it establishes government, establishes how government will function, and protects the rights of citizens. All Constitutions include a procedure for amending its provisions. This amendment procedure is rigorous to preclude frivolous change and demands a higher level of passage than a simple legislative act. Therefore, changing any Constitution through a simple legislative act is unconstitutional because it bypasses the more demanding amendment process and the protections included therein.
If a fundamental purpose of our Constitution is to establish how our government functions and two prime functions of our government are to establish and review laws, then it follows that any significant change to our legislative or judicial review processes, must be made by amendment. This truth is fundamental and self-evident. Clearly, it is wrong to allow a lower level procedure established by the Constitution to change procedures provided for in the Constitution, when a higher level procedure is included for that expressed purpose. Therefore, any ordinary legislative act which results in a change to how our government functions is unconstitutional because it trivializes the amendment process and by extension, the Constitution itself.
When Congress passed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), thereby establishing this Nation as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), it did so through a simple majority vote on a trade bill. Unfortunately, WTO membership entails far more than just a trade agreement because the organization was constituted to govern world trade through a dispute settlement process. This dispute settlement process, supersedes and replaces the legislative and legislative review processes established by our Constitution and therefore as demonstrated in Complaints 1, 2, 3, & 4, constitutes a fundamental and significant change in how our government functions and operates. These fundamental and significant changes are as follows:
· Subject to final approval by the President, Congress
enacted all laws governing this Nation and its people.
It is self-evident that these changes wrought by the enactment of GATT, are significant and fundamental such that they constitute a significant change in the nature and form of our government. This being true, the Congressional vote for the Uruguay Round of GATT, a simple legislative act of Congress, is repugnant to our Constitution because such significant and fundamental change to governmental functions must be made by Constitutional Amendment. For these reasons, GATT and our membership in the WTO is unconstitutional.
The central issue to the complaints in this legal action is whether or not an act repugnant to the Constitution can become United States Law. This issue was addressed in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in his opinion written in the case of Marbury v. Madison. The words of Chief Justice Marshall that apply to this legal action are as follows:
The question whether an act, repugnant to the Constitution, can become law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as in their opinions shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on which they are imposed and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it or that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power, in its own nature, illimitable.
Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation and consequently, the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution and is, consequently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, not withstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow, in fact, what was established in theory and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of these conflicting rules govern the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If then, the courts are to regard the Constitution and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government is entirely void, is yet in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality ineffectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions, a written constitution would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises. This is too extravagant to be maintained.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that the courts, as well as other departments (Congress) are bound by that instrument. The (repugnant) rule must be discharged (repealed).
In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall clearly establishes that any act in contradiction to the provisions of our Constitution is repugnant to the Constitution. Furthermore, Chief Justice Marshall goes on to establish that any act repugnant to our Constitution is unconstitutional and must be repealed. So it is with GATT and our membership in the WTO, established as follows:
· GATT is an ordinary legislative act passed by Congress.
Therefore, GATT, being an ordinary legislative act passed by Congress, is repugnant to the Constitution. If GATT is repugnant to the Constitution, then GATT is not law, is void, is not binding upon the American people, and must be discharged (repealed).
Other Supporting Arguments
President George Washington, our first President and the father of our Nation, in his farewell address given on September 19, 1796, said:
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us the truth of this position.
The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the Guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.
If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
George Washington was very clear on his feelings about governmental agencies assuming powers not provided for in our Constitution or encroaching upon powers reserved for other governmental departments. He strongly believed that such changes in the distribution of powers should be made only by amendment. If they are not, then the precedent set results in the destruction of our government. GATT, established by an ordinary act of Congress, has resulted in the usurpation of the legislative power of Congress and the judicial power of our Supreme Court by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. For whatever good can possible be derived from this state of affairs, from George Washington's perspective, a permanent evil has been introduced into our body politic that will destroy our free government.
Concrete and particular injury suffered by the Plaintiffs,
as a class, are:
b. The nature and form of the government that the Plaintiffs live under and pledge allegiance to, has been improperly and wrongfully changed because of the Defendants' actions as established in Complaints #1, #2, #3, #4, & #5, of this civil action. Before GATT, this Nation was a Democratic Republic where the Plaintiffs voted for those who made all of our laws. In this Democratic Republic, it was incumbent for government to abide by our Constitution's Provisions. Subsequent to GATT, the Plaintiffs no longer vote for those who make all our laws and a precedent has been set such that the government is no longer bound by the provisions of our Constitution. Therefore, our Constitution has been rendered dysfunctional and void for primary purpose for which it was written.
Because our Constitution has been rendered dysfunctional and void, and because we now do not vote for the those who make some of our laws, the Plaintiffs hold that this Nation is no longer a Democratic Republic and that recitation of our Pledge of Allegiance is foolish because the Republic we pledge allegiance to no longer exists.
c. The laws of this Nation are made and passed by way of a
lengthy and arduous legislative process. All laws so passed are
subject to legis-lative review where the only criteria of nullification
is constitutionality. Under GATT, the laws of this Nation are
now subject to veto by a group of foreign nationals based solely
upon what they consider to be fair in matters of trade. Furthermore,
rulings of WTO, which are legally binding upon American citizens,
are not subject to appeal and review by our Supreme Court. If
our laws can be nullified, without due process, by a foreign
organization and if laws not of our making can be imposed upon
us by that same foreign organization, then the Plaintiffs hold
that we are the victims of tyranny.
The Plaintiff's hold that it is self-evident that the harm and injuries, as identified under "INJURIES", was incurred as a direct result out of the passage of GATT and our participation as members of the WTO.
The plaintiffs request the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, rule that the Final Act Embodying The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, the Final Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, and our participation in the World Trade Organization as a member of that organization, is repugnant to the provisions of our Constitution and therefore, unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs further request injunctive relief such that the defendants are ordered as follows:
a. To cease and desist participation of the United States in the World Trade Organization and to forgo adherence to its associated Annexes and Agreements.
b. To ensure that all duly constituted laws of this Nation modified or repealed by the action of the WTO's DSB, be restored.
c. To pay all costs and fees associated with this legal action.
As stated previously, the above filing was amended in response to the defendant's motion to dismiss. A written response to that motion was also filed with the Court and this document follows:
PLAITIFFS' RESPONSE T0 THE DEFENDENTS
We, Alan R. Adaschik and other Plaintiffs as a class, by and through the undersigned attorney Pro Se, hereby respectfully request that, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 23, Fed.R.Civ.P, the Court decline to dismiss this action on the basis of jurisdiction over the subject matter do to the Plaintiff's lack of standing and failure to satisfy the prerequisites to maintain a class action.
MEMORANDUM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLE
We the plaintiff's hold these truths to be self-evident and inviolate:
1. A constitution serves two primary purposes; it establishes government and more important, it establishes how that government will function and operate; the prime function of a constitution.
2. If the provisions of a constitution can be and/or are violated by the government it establishes in the course of conducting its affairs, then the constitution does not fulfill its prime function. A constitution that does not fulfill its prime function is dysfunctional and void. If a constitution dysfunctional and void, then the government it established is illegal and unlawful.
3. Items #1 & #2 above being true, it follows that a mechanism must exist, under a constitution, for citizens to hold their government accountable by challenging the actions of their government in a court of law. Furthermore, it also follows that it is incumbent and imperative for government to cease, desist, and refrain from all actions deemed to be unconstitutional by a court of law. If a government refuses to do so, then it is illegal and unlawful.
4. If no mechanism exists, under a constitution, for citizens to challenge the actions of government in a court of law or if any citizen, any group of citizens, or all citizens as a group, for any reason, are denied the right to challenge the constitutionality of governmental actions in a court of law, then the constitution in question can be violated with impunity by the government it is supposed to control and restrain. If the constitution in question can be violated with impunity by the government it is supposed control and constrain, then that constitution is dysfunctional and void. Therefore, as established in item #2, above, the government in question is illegal and unlawful.
5. Items #1, #2, #3, & #4, above, are true and inviolate for all constitutions and all nations including the United States of America. If items #1, #2, #3, & #4 are not true for any nation, including the United States of America, then the government of the nation in question has violated an inalienable right of the people; the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Any government that violates an inalienable right of the people, for any reason, is unlawful and illegal.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This proceeding is a trial in a court of law. However, it is different than all other legal proceedings because the controversy is not one between two parties with opposing interests, but instead a controversy between a government and its citizens where the interests of both the plaintiffs and the defendants are one and the same; that the Constitution is upheld and preserved through adherence to its provisions. To be sure, the defendants have sworn an oath of office affirming that this is the case.
The Plaintiffs have raised the issue of the Constitutionality
of GATT and our participation in the WTO. Not only do the Plaintiffs
hold that GATT and our participation in the WTO is unconstitutional,
we hold that it is self-evident that it is unconstitutional because
it has change the nature and form of our government. Therefore,
a determination of constitutionality is not only vital, but crucial
to the interests of this Nation and its people. This being so,
the plaintiffs hold that motions to dismiss this legal action
by the Defendants due to questions of standing and issues concerning
the maintenance of a class action are wrongful.
RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
1. Re: RELEVANT PROCEDURAL GACKGROUND, 2., page 2. The Complaint states no facts relating to the District Court's jurisdiction over this action.
In this legal action the Plaintiffs offered an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison which establishes that the Federal Courts hold jurisdiction over the legislative acts of Congress.
On July 13, 1998, Alan R. Adaschik, the attorney Pro Se of this legal action, on behalf of the people of the United States of America, petitioned our Supreme Court to for a ruling in regard to the Constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO as members under the Courts authority of "original jurisdiction" as established in Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution (petition included as Exhibit A) the United States of America, seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court under is Constitutionally provided authority of original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ignored this request and as a result, on August 3, 1995, Mr. Adaschik called the office of William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court to find out why the Supreme Court had not responded to his petition. This call was taken by Mr. Francis Lorson, Assistant to the Clerk of the Supreme Court (see Exhibit B, Mr. Adaschik's August 4, 1995 letter to William K. Suter). In the course of his conversation with Mr. Lorson, Mr. Adaschik was told that the only way for a citizen or citizens to obtain a ruling on issues of constitutionality was through a District Court and the appellate process.
In consideration of the above, the facts relevant to the District's Court's jurisdiction over this action are that it is the responsibility of the federal court system to make determinations of constitutionality, the Supreme Court has declined to do so, an official of the Supreme Court has instructed the Plaintiff that the District Court has jurisdiction, and that the Plaintiff's hold that the GATT and our participation in the WTO as members is unconstitutional.
These facts as listed of above will be made part of an amended complaint.
2. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 2. Plaintiff would have this court address matters of foreign affairs which fall squarely within the purview of the political branches of government.
Not true - The Plaintiff's interest in this matter is to achieve a determination concerning the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and our participation as a member of an international organization wrongfully given authority establish laws binding upon Americans and to veto the duly constituted laws of this Nation. The fact that the offending law concerns matters of foreign affairs does not mitigate or abrogate the Courts responsibilities in this regard.
3. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 3. Plaintiff complains that the political branches have ceded too much authority to international organizations.
Not true - The Plaintiff's hold that the Constitution precludes
Congress and the President from ceding any legislative authority
to any organization, international or otherwise, by legislative
act, by the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations,
or by the power to enter into agreements with foreign nations.
Not true - While the arguments made by the plaintiffs in this legal action may be similar to those in Made in the USA, they are not the same arguments. Furthermore, the two cases are entirely different in nature and scope such that and rulings made in one do not necessarily apply to the other. NAFTA is a trade agreement between nations and nothing more. GATT, on the other hand, is far more than a trade agreement. Instead, it establishes a fourth branch of our government that is made up of foreign nationals with no ties to this Nation or its people. The tragic reality of this state of affairs is that this external fourth branch of government is superior to and sits above the other three branches; our President, our Legislature, and our Supreme Court.
5. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, 1., Threshold Analysis, page 4, 5, & 6.
The Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to meet the three requirements necessary to establish standing as identified in this Section of the Defendants motion to dismiss.
6. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Threshold Analysis, 1., a., page 6, 7, & 8. Plaintifs Claims of Injury Are Not Sufficiently Particularized to Confer Standing, and Amount Instead to a Generalized Grievance
The Plaintiffs hold that the Defendants claim that to establish standing in this complaint a plaintiff has to establish that he has suffered harm or injury separate and apart from all others. For example, provided by the defense, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that:
raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to this and every citizen's interest in the proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article III case or controversy
The Plaintiffs take no issue with this ruling of the Supreme Court. However, we object to the defendants using this ruling as justification for moving to dismiss this legal action because the Plaintiff has not alleged a unique injury as opposed to a generalized one. The Supreme Court has ruled that generalized injuries do not rise to an Article III controversy when government has properly application the Constitution and laws. This should not and cannot be construed to mean that generalized injuries do not rise to an Article III controversy when the government has improperly and wrongfully applied the constitutional provision such that Constitution has been grievously violated as maintained by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs do not claim harm and injury as a result of the proper application of the Constitution and laws but instead we claim we have been harmed as a result of a grievous violation of Constitutional provisions.
7. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Threshold Analysis, 1., b. Causation, c. Redressability.
6. NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS, page 10. Even if the Complaint is sufficient to supply Plaintiff with standing to maintain this action, it must be dismissed for lack jurisdiction over the President of Congress.
While it is true that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the
actions of the President and
7. PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, page 11. This Court cannot order the President to terminate and international agreement. Courts, however, generally do not have jurisdiction to direct or enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. Even if GATT were declared unconstitutional by a federal court, that would not necessarily relieve the United States of its obligations under the agreement as a matter of international law. Etc. Etc.
Even granting that all of the above is true, the President has overstepped the authority of his position and acted far beyond any authority given to him by the Constitution and the laws of these United States. As has been established in our original complaints, GATT is not just an trade agreement. It is an agreement to establish a World government whose power and authority supersedes and is superior to the governments of its individual members, including the government of the United States of America. Such a change in governing and our government cannot be accomplished through our President's authority to enter into agreements with foreign states, cannot be made by Congress through their ordinary legislative power, and cannot be made by Congress though its authority to enter into treaties with foreign nations. A change of this nature can only be made by constitutional amendment.
8. CONGRESSIONAL IMMUNITY UNDER SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE. Page 12. The question to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the "Sphere of legitimate legislative activity".
It has been made clear in the previous item that changing the nature and form of our government by establishing a fourth branch superior to all others is does not fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity" of Congress.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Americans pride themselves upon the fact that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We hold these perceptions for two very important reasons, we vote for those who make the laws we live by and those we vote for to make our laws are morally and legally bound to abide by the provisions of our constitution. These truths are the essence of a Democratic Republic. We are a Democracy because we vote for those who lead us and we are a Republic because those who lead us are bound by our Constitution to lead us in a specific and predetermined way. A necessary principle inherent to a Republic is the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances; the most important and fundamental grievance being the departure of government from constitutional provision.
It appears from the points of law used by the defense in this legal action that decisions made by the courts of this Nation have served to remove any possible way for citizens to question the unconstitutionality of governmental actions in a court of law. If this is indeed true, then the plaintiffs hold that the courts of this Nation have denied the citizens of this Nation their inalienable right to petition the government for the redress of grievances and by doing so, have given license to the government to violate the provisions of our Constitution with impunity. If the government can violate our Constitution with impunity, then our Constitution is dysfunctional and void. If our Constitution is dysfunctional and void, then our government is illegal and unlawful and can no longer hold claim to being a Republic.
For all of the above reasons, the Plaintiffs ask this court to deny the defendants motion for a dismissal.
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF BELIEF AND
The Defendant's have asked this court to dismiss this civil action because the Attorney Pro Se for the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that he has suffered a personal and particular injury separate from the other Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' hold that, irrespective of previous rulings and precedents, dismissal of this complaint for the reason cited is unconstitutional because it serves to separate the Plaintiffs from their Constitution and renders that document dysfunctional and void for the primary purpose for which it was written.
The primary purpose of our Constitution is to establish the nature and form of our government. It is self-evident that nature and form of our government is common to all citizens. Therefore, changes to the nature and form of our government will not affect us separately as individuals, but instead, will only affect all citizens in common as a group.
For example, suppose that instead of enacting GATT, Congress voted to ensure that all our laws, rules, and procedure would conform to that of the British Empire. Further, Congress also voted that all laws passed by the British Parliament would be legally binding upon this Nation and that all Americans will swear allegiance to the British Crown. Beyond question, the effect of this act of Congress would be the reversal of the American Revolution. Is such an act of Congress constitutional? If the Defendant's have their way, this question is irrelevant, because the act in question injured Americans universally and no American will be able to demonstrate a unique injury apart from other citizens. Therefore, constitutional or not, the law in question would stand because no citizen would be able to challenge it in a court of law.
To be sure, if Congress voted that all Americans reaching the age of eighteen will be branded with their social security number, citizens would also have no recourse in a court of law concerning this matter because the injury sustained is common to all. Clearly, "unique and separate injury" is an absurd constitutional standard to be applied when citizens approach a court on issues of constitu-tionality because such issues, by their nature, are common to all citizens.
The constitutional standard proffered by the Defendants wrongfully denies citizens access to the courts, thereby rendering our Constitution dysfunctional and opening the door to a real tyranny. If citizens are not able to challenge the actions of government in a court of law due to the commonality of the injuries sustained, then our government holds the power to change its nature and form, at will, without amending the Constitution. Clearly, such a state of affairs is repugnant to our Constitution and it follows that any decision by a court that establishes or sustains this state of affairs, is also repugnant to our Constitution.
The Defendants have raised an issue concerning the procedural matters of this Court and ask the Court to dismiss this legal action on that basis. What is more vital to the interests of this Nation and its people. To have this Court sustain the Defendant's motion to dismiss and thereby possibly give license to a course of action that may be repugnant to our Constitution or to deny the Defendant's motion and thereby render a determination of the matter? The Judicial System of this Nation is tasked with the responsibility of ruling on issues of constitu-tionality. This responsibility cannot be fulfilled unless issues of constitutionality are brought before a Court. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss, for all intents and purposes, is really a motion for the Court to shun an important and crucial constitutional responsibility.
The status of the above lawsuit is that it is in Limbo. It has been almost two years since the defense filed its motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion. Upon having done this, it is incumbent upon the Court to issue a ruling in the matter, which is has failed to do. Unless a ruling is issued, the legal action cannot proceed. It is clear that by filing this legal action with the Court, as citizens, the plaintiffs have petitioned their government for redress of a very real and important grievance. Furthermore, no other avenue of approach is available for addressing the issues raised. Therefore, if this legal action is in permanent limbo and continues to be ignored by the Court, then the inescapable conclusion is that the plaintiffs unalienable right to petition government for the redress of grievances no longer exists.