Gary, thank you for your response.
Bob previously received communication on this and has been well aware of legitimate concerns. There was no reason to send him this again, that which he previously refused to respond to. The reason for the post is truth and enlightenment.
In fact, in early 2009, after doing research at the Mass. State House, and specifically on 1760's-17770's, and contrasting and comparing with Mr. Schulz's proposal, I resigned as Mass. Coordinator for Mr. Schulz's We the People organization, expressing my several concerns very similar to the below post regarding process and authority, also including requests that he support the several state movements. I sent my communication to him and the other 49 state coordinators of his We the People organization. I never received a direct response from him to
my concerns. His refusal to support legitimate state movements such as those grown from the writings of Dr. Vieira also speaks for itself.
This is strictly subject matter. I respect Mr. Schulz, but he is off-point.
Dan McGonigle
Boston
--- On Sun, 8/23/09, Gary Franchi, RTR <[address removed]> wrote:
From: Gary Franchi, RTR <[address removed]>
Subject: Re: Commentary on Schulz CC2009 at FreedomWatch
To: "Dan McGonigle" <[address removed]>
Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 10:42 PM
Why don't you send this to Bob?
-GaryOn Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Dan McGonigle <[address removed]> wrote:
Commentary on Mr. Schulz CC2009 at Judge Napolitano's FreedomWatch
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas
click on Comments
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/232386-redress-of-grievances-lawsuit-continental-congress-2009?ref=comments
"Comments
DannyMac
There are several things wrong with Mr. Schulz and his private Continental Congress proposal that he is pushing forward:
1. His CC2009 proposal has no public election of delegates at
public meetings that were pre-posted publicly, from the ground local
level to state delegate elections up to national congress delegate
elections. The founders in 1774 did all elections of delegates first
from the ground up at local level pre-announced public meetings, then
the same local committees elected state delegates at pre-announced
public meetings, then the authorized state delegates elected delegates
to Continental Congress. Mr. Schulz selection of delegates is basically
through his private website. No pre-announced authorized elections at
public meetings ever occurred. Therefore, CC2009 has no authorization,
and therefore should not be called a Continental Congress, because it
is not one.
2. Mr. Schulz proposes spending several weeks costing several
thousands of dollars per participant. This takes away valuable time and
money, both of which are in short supply, draining valuable resources
from other activities that are authorized and could make a difference.
3. After the several weeks meetings, the outcome will have no
authority to change anything. It would merely be a weeks long forum.
4. Mr. Schulz uses the reasoning for CC2009 being that his past
private petitioning for redress exhausted all remedies, and therefore
the only thing left to do is hold an alleged Continental Congress.
Wrong. All remedies are far from exhausted. Much can be done through
the state legislatures which has not yet been done. For example,
restoring sound money, revitalizing state militias, and enforcing state
sovereignty, all of which are constitutional remedies, and which are
being organized. Unfortunately, Mr. Schulz refuses to join these state
movements, or assist them financially, which Mr. Schulz is very capable
of doing if he so chose.
5. When the 13 states in 1774 called for a Continental Congress to
decide on action to take, Boston harbor was already blockaded by the English
navy, shutting down the Atlantic trade route, Boston was under martial
law, and firearms had been confiscated. Political and economic remedies
were exhausted, leaving the 1st Continental Congress only to the remedy
of common defense." |
|
