Notice of Gratitude and Remonstrance Against Rules Abrogating the Right to Petition

 Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

 

I, __________________, one of the People (as seen in the 50 American States), republican in form, Sui Juris, do serve you, the Justices of the Supreme Court, this Notice, by Necessity, so that you do provide immediate due care;

Please take Notice that on August 5, 2026, Chief Justice Roberts, restored the Supreme Court’s independence from Congress by giving its Clerks notice (Enclosure 2) that the First Amendment includes the right to petition by writ of error (see Enclosure 3). 

Please take Notice that We the People are grateful for this good faith obedience, and we see that this Court is diligently restoring the republic by returning to original law. Thank you.

Please take Notice that I ask: “Can rules abrogate the right to petition?”

Please take Notice that We the People now send this Remonstrance to this Court so that it continues its good faith restoration of the republic by guaranteeing the right to petition as a command, instead of a request.

Please take Notice that on July 28, 2026, your Clerk wrote, “These papers fail to comply with the Rules of this Court and are herewith returned” (see Enclosure 1). Here, what your Clerk falsely described as “papers”, the Constitution calls a “petition”.

Maxim: “A false description does not vitiate.” 6 Term. 676; 1 Greenl. Ev. s. 301; Broom, Max. 3d Lond. ed. 562.

Please take Notice that the constitutional right to petition is a command to government for redress. It is not a request. People created government to serve them, and reserved our constitutional rights as inherent and individual powers that, by their nature, are outside of and greater than government’s powers. People may freely command (petition) government (legislative, executive, judicial) to give redress. No government has authority to oppose (directly or indirectly) the exercise of right. This is why the original Supreme Court’s Rules never mentioned how to receive petitions (2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 399 (1790)). That Court understood that rules cannot abrogate rights. More precisely, it understood that rules must aid petitions. Today, however, your Clerks use rules to reject petitions (see Enclosure 1), and each time is an unofficial act that prevents you from giving justice. This is unconstitutional. This Court, by necessity, must restore its practice to original form. (see evidence below):

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

3 Joseph Story, Commentaries, §§1886-1888 (1833).
“§1886. The remaining clause secures “the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” §1887. This would seem unnecessary to be expressly provided for in a republican government, since it results from the very nature of its structure and institutions. It is impossible, that it could be practically denied, until the spirit of liberty had wholly disappeared, and the people had become so servile and debased, as to be unfit to exercise any of the privileges of freemen. §1888…Mr. Tucker has indulged himself in a disparaging criticism upon the phraseology of this clause, as savouring too much of that style of condescension, in which favours are supposed to be granted. But this seems to be quite overstrained; since it speaks the voice of the people in the language of prohibition, and not in that of affirmance of a right, supposed to be unquestionable, and inherent.”

Maxim: “That power is vain [idle or useless] which never comes into action, [which is never exercised.] 2 Coke, 51.

Maxim: “The practice of the Court is the law of the Court.” 3 Bulst. 53.

Please take Final Notice that it is my wish, order, and demand that this Court, by necessity, fully restore and openly explain that the hidden right to petition is a command to government (legislative, executive, judicial) for redress, that it is not a request for favor, and, in the interest of justice and as a sign of this Court’s good faith to restore the republic, that this Court give redress to Petitioner’s writ of error when it is received (Tracking #9589071052702643925136). This is the same petition that this Court’s Clerk rejected with a rule (see Enclosure 1). If any Justice believes I am wrong in the law or that rules can abrogate rights, he or she may submit affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury and postmarked within ten (10) days receipt of this Remonstrance, showing the constitutional provision or fundamental principle of law authorizing constitutional rights to be abrogated by rules, or, by tacit acquiescence, each Justice of the Supreme Court agrees that all written herein is truth, and that each time hereafter that a Clerk rejects a petition, it shall stand as each Justice has denied the right to petition with full knowledge, malice, and intent to perform maladministration in breach of the public trust of the Constitution, and that each Justices performs an unofficial act contrary to their oath and to deny justice. This is sent to you in the peace and love of Jesus Christ, so that this Court continues its good faith restoration of original law and fundamental form. The People are grateful that this Court is showing wisdom worthy of its high duty. (see evidence below):

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)
“There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

Maxim: “Nothing is more just than that which is necessary.” Dav. Ir. K.B. 12; Branch, Princ.