For Release…

For Release – “LaVergne v US House of Representatives” “Trumps” the Ryan Tax Plan.

For Release: December 2nd, 2017

Preface – “No Quorum = No Legislation”

This case proves that the 115th Congress has no quorum in the House of Representatives. As such, NO action taken by the House since January 3rd is yet complete. We, the PEOPLE, are the masters of that HOUSE, and those within it are sent to SERVE – not to RULE.
“Stand for what’s right, or settle for what’s left”–

Frederick John LaVergne, Democrat for Congress,
New Jersey’s Third Congressional District, 2018.


LaVergne v. U.S. House of Representatives:

One of the most important legal cases in American History, so why isn’t everybody talking about it?
Check out the proofs in the Public Docket (PACER® Case No. 1:17-cv-793-CKK-CP-RDM), specifically the pending Summary Judgment Motion, and pay attention in the coming weeks and months to all developments in LaVergne v. U.S. House of Representatives as if your freedom and the future of the United States depends on it –

Because it does.

Every year thousands upon thousands of civil lawsuits are filed in the Federal Courts. Since the adoption of the United States Constitution almost 230 years ago there have been millions upon millions of civil cases filed in our Federal Courts. Out of that almost incalculable number, but a scant few have carved out a sustaining place in history and are immediately known to all Judges, Lawyers and Students of Government by their name alone due to the profound and lasting effect each case has had on our history and the way we as a People live: Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Reynolds v. Simms, New York Times v. Sullivan, Roe v. Wade, Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission, to name but a few.

It now appears we can add to that list LaVergne v. U.S. House of Representatives. But if LaVergne v. U.S. House of Representatives is really one of the most important legal case in history, then why isn’t everybody talking about it? Perhaps because few people know or are paying attention.

In December 2016, in the waning days of President Barak Obama’s Administration, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) published a new proposed Agency Rule in the Federal Register entitled “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services.” This new Agency Rule operated to protect privacy interest of citizens by, among other things, barring Internet Service Providers from collecting and selling or otherwise disseminating a customer’s personal, business and health information to third parties for free or for profit. Boring – but many would argue important – stuff. Under the Congressional Review Act, these proposed new FCC Agency Rules aimed at protecting citizen’s privacy interests would automatically become binding Federal Law unless during a statutory specified time period Congress passed and the President signed a “disapproval resolution”.
During the operative time period, on January 3, 2015 the new 435 Members of the One Hundred and Fifteenth Congress were sworn in to office. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin was ostensibly elected as Speaker of the House. At noon on January 20, 2017 Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. Thereafter, and during the operative statutory time period for Congress to reject the proposed new FCC Agency Rules, the Senate passed a “disapproval resolution”, and on March 28, 2017 the House of Representatives formally voted in favor of the “disapproval resolution.” On April 3, 2017 the “disapproval resolution”, as passed in the Senate and House, was presented to President Trump for his approval, and on that same date President Trump signed the “disapproval resolution”, now identified as Public Law No. 115-22, thereby permanently blocking the proposed new FCC Agency Rules from becoming Federal Law.
Almost immediately a small group of citizens filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington D.C. challenging Public Law No. 115-22. Since Public Law No. 115-22 rejected (or “disallowed”) the proposed new FCC Agency Rules, Internet Service Providers were and are now free to sell customer’s private personal, business and health information to third parties.
Plaintiffs objected to this as an invasion of their privacy rights which therefore tangibly injured them, and they challenged Public Law No. 115-22 as unconstitutional. What makes this case significant and important is not that the Plaintiffs challenge Public Law No. 115-22 as unconstitutional. Rather, it is the actual basis upon which they claim the law is unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs claim that “Article the First”, the literal first ever amendment proposed to the United States Constitution by Congress to the States, was actually ratified into law some time before 1792 and was lost or hidden in history. The whole story is told in a detailed 600 page book authored by lead Plaintiff Eugene Martin LaVergne entitled How “Less” is “More”: The Real First Amendment to the United States Constitution, published by First Amendment Free Press, Inc., New York, New York (2016).

Plaintiffs contend that if they are correct than this lost but fully ratified Constitutional Amendment requires that there be more than 6,200 Representatives in the United States House of Representatives. The Constitution requires that a Quorum – 50% +1 of the full membership of the Members of a Legislative Body – be present before any business may be voted on. If Plaintiff’s are correct, then this means that more than 3,100 Representatives must be elected and appear before the House of Representatives may vote on anything. This means that the vote taken in the House on March 28, 2017 on Public Law No. 115-22 was taken in the absence of a Quorum, rendering the law unconstitutional. This also means that Paul Ryan is not legally the Speaker of the House, nor is he in the line of Presidential Succession. Nor may the House vote on Articles of Impeachment until there is a Quorum of more than 3,100 Representatives.

At first glance Plaintiff’s contention that there should be more than 6,200 Representatives in the House all sounds preposterous – the stuff of tin foil hats and rubber rooms – until you read LaVergne’s book or see the actual proofs on file in the lawsuit. Then it becomes disturbingly real and more than possible…in fact, it becomes down right likely that the Plaintiffs will win.

No less than United States Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland (yes, the Justice that President Obama nominated for the United States Supreme Court) has Ordered that a special Three Judge Federal District Court be convened to hear the Plaintiffs Claims in Federal Court in Washington.

The Plaintiffs have already filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which remains on the Public Docket for the essential proofs to be reviewed by anyone willing to look. The Court’s consideration of this motion will occur after several procedural issues are argued and decided.

Otherwise stated, there is essentially no argument from the Defendants that the Plaintiffs are not 100% historically accurate! So, for now the issue is whether the Federal Court will be procedurally allowed to acknowledge historical and legal truth and provide a meaningful remedy. The smart money is that they will, which will, in one fell swoop, completely restructure one half of the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government.

That decision will greatly increase Representation of the People in the United States House of Representatives, and will greatly increase the number of Electoral Votes used to select a President. So, wake up, pay attention, and check out the proofs in the Public Docket (PACER® Case No. 1:17-cv-793-CKK-CP-RDM) and pay attention in the coming weeks and months to all developments in LaVergne v. U.S. House of Representatives as if your freedom and the future of the United States depends on it – because it does.

This link will take you to the scholarly work noted above…