For Release…

For Release – “LaVergne v US House of Representatives” “Trumps” the Ryan Tax Plan.
POSTED DECEMBER 5, 2017 ADMIN

For Release: December 2nd, 2017
FREDERICK JOHN LAVERGNE·SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 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.

PRESS RELEASE:

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.
Yet.

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…
https://www.amazon.com/How-Less-More-Amendment-Constitution-ebook/dp/B01N69X1YZ/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1512135999&sr=8-4&keywords=how+less+is+more

Learning Curve –

For some of our officials, the learning curve for Article the First seems to be insurmountably steep.

Here it is in a nutshell.

The present maximum size – per this ratified amendment – for a Congressional District is:

50,000 persons.

The present cadre of Congresspersons is:

435

Per the 2010 Census (the Decennial Census, which is used to determine the Apportionment of the House), the number of Congresspersons who are SUPPOSED to be in Congress is:

6233

UH-OH.

That means that only 7% of the Congress is actually present.

Unless 50% of 6233 PLUS ONE is present, Congress lacks a quorum and cannot legislate.

That number is 3117.

We’re 2682 Congresspersons short of a quorum since January 3rd.

The 115th Congress has not yet convened.

We can’t even call it the “Ryan Congress”, because he is not yet technically elected “Speaker of the House”.

The establishment and K Street lose control of the Legislature because of this.

You know who takes over, then?

WE, the PEOPLE.

Learn more.

The lawsuit continues to move forward in the 1st District Court in the District of Columbia, before the required three-judge panel – selected, ironically, by none other than Justice Merrick Garland.

(Yes, we chose our venue on purpose).

Every citizen has standing in this case.

I’m not standing on the courthouse steps with a sharpie-drawn oak-tag sign. I and my fellows are inside, LITIGATING – for YOUR rights.

Stand with us.

Stand for what’s right, or settle for what’s left – Frederick John LaVergne, Democrat for Congress, NJ Congressional District Three….

(and to my primary opponent – stop lying to people and telling them I’m not running while you’re calling folks to fundraise….btw, thought you said you weren’t taking any PAC money. You are paying lip service to this district – I’m actually doing something. More pennies on the railroad tracks)

Nice Try, Congressman Ryan…You’ve been SERVED. “No Quorum means No Legislation”

Yes, this is REAL NEWS….

The response period is nearly over, and the Judges have been selected by Assignment Judge Merrick Garland

This case is moving forward. Article the First is RATIFIED. It’s not up for debate.

“NO QUORUM means NO LEGISLATION”

 

(Image is of Paul Ryan’s package containing his lawsuit copy , etc., sent to him in his role as Congressman, returned after being inspected by his staff <see tape re-sealing it> in an effort to pretend he was “not served”. He was, however, ALSO served in his capacity as Speaker, so “Nice Try”. “I can’t hear you” didn’t work when you were a toddler, Congressman, and it won’t, now.)

 




A Fourth of July Message –

While many are today enjoying family barbecues and celebrating our freedoms, the subject of our present Representation in Congress and the White House will certainly enter into the conversation.
A great many of us will grouse about what the present Congress has been doing.
A vastly greater number of our citizens are wholly unaware of the dismantling of our freedoms that is taking place, because they are distracted by the coverage of Trump’s foibles, or because they are too caught up in simply trying to make ends meet to feel they have any control over what’s happening.
Over the last few months, Congress has attempted to:
 
· Roll back internet privacy.
 
· Remove regulation in the Financial Community by repealing Dodd-Frank
 
· Gut EPA regulations protecting of our environment.
 
· Dismantle the Affordable Care Act, replacing it with the WEALTH CARE ACT.
…and that’s just the beginning.  Wait until you see what they have planned for Social Security, and for tax breaks to the wealthiest 0.1%.
They’ve been emboldened, because the backlash has primarily been protest marches and social media memes – visible, but ineffective.
Those who have given their time to protest a problem already identified are still worthy of thanks and appreciation – but a carrying a sign in front of the Court House or State House, or even the Capitol Building, accomplishes little, because these folks have no intention of listening to you or I.
I thank you for what you’re doing, but we will only win this FIGHT in the Courtroom.
We are already there.
I am Frederick John LaVergne.  I and four of my fellow true patriots have filed in US District Court to defeat the actions of the 115th Congress taken to date, using a Constitutional Amendment that was ratified in 1792.
This ratified amendment was “hidden/lost” from the view of the American People, possibly intentionally, because it would “dilute the grandeur of the office”, as one of it’s opponents put it during the debates that led up to the proposal of the “Articles of Amendment” – what we, today, call “The Bill of Rights”.
It was, in fact, the FIRST of the Articles proposed.
This Ratified Amendment may be our last hope – and we have brought it to the JUDICIARY to take back our Nation.
For all the nay-sayers, this case is already moving forward.
In a great historical irony, the Honorable Merrick Garland of the US District Court, District of Columbia, was tasked as the “assignment judge”, and he has already selected the necessary three-judge panel.
The defendants and interested parties – all 8000-plus of them – have been served.
The Congress does not presently seat a quorum, per the Constitution, and so, as a body, does not yet have the authority to Legislate.
NOTHING they have done since January 3rd, 2017, has actually been completed, yet.
Until “Article the First” is adhered to in the apportionment of the House of Representatives, Congress has no quorum.
Until they do, they may not Legislate.  They don’t yet exist as a body capable or empowered to do so.
This represents a sea change – required, not by us, but by our Constitution.
All who presently serve have sworn to uphold the Constitution – ALL of it, not just the parts they prefer – and, as such, it will be their obligation to adhere to this change, or they will have demonstrably broken their oath.
The ramifications of this are huge, and we can expect serious institutional resistance to this – especially from among the K-Street Lobbyists and the entrenched “un-elected bosses” within the party organizations.
This resistance, and, indeed, the corruption this destroys, was exactly the reason Article the First was proposed, and proposed before even our personal freedoms.
Congress doesn’t tell us how powerful THEY are…WE allow them only as much power as we consent to give them.
Our Constitution is, as I have said before, “a bit in the mouth of Congress, with the reins held by “We, the People – twitched at the polls as necessary.”
It is important to you, to your family, and to all you care about, including generations not yet born, that you understand exactly what this means.
It is even more important that “We, the People” see this through to its full execution.
I will be speaking at various venues around the State on this – with particular attention to the 53 towns in Congressional District Three.
This message belongs to ALL OF US.
The way to win this War on “We, the PEOPLE”, is with the law, and with the vote.
“Article the First” belongs to ALL OF US.
Take heed, and prepare for action.
Frederick John LaVergne, Democrat for Congress, NJ CD3, 2018.
A formal press release is forthcoming, but we are doubtful that they will want to cover this.  It’s up to YOU to spread the word.
If you support what we’re doing, please click the “Donate” page in the header OR BELOW and offer what you can to help in funding this fight.



“No Quorum = No Legislation”

“Article the First” is ratified…will our government uphold the Constitution?

March 24, 2015 at 11:05pm

(Note:  Since this was initially published, we have filed suit in the US District Court – District of Columbia, to compel promulgation of Article the First.  The three-judge panel has already been set.  Funny how the media is utterly ignoring the most important Constitutional issue of the age.)

There is a rising need to educate our students, from an early age, to understand what freedoms were reserved for them in the language of our Constitution.

We must cultivate a respect, a reverence, for those words.

A friend once said to me, “You act like the Constitution was written in blood”.  I replied, “No, but that’s what paid for the ink.”

We have a duty, to our children, and to all future generations, to uphold the values contained within that document.

Another friend commented, “I’m surprised it’s not in Latin”.  My response?  “Latin is a “dead” language.  Freedom is not.”

Our Constitution IS changeable.  There is a process that must be followed for change to take place, and it requires the consent of the governed – in very specific, measured steps that must be taken to demonstrate that consent.

Congress may propose amendments.  It does not ratify them.  Those seated in Washington D.C.in the two houses of our Legislature are charged to uphold the Constitution AS IT IS – not as they might like it to be.

We face a conundrum. Through scholarly research of extraordinary diligence, it has been proven unequivocally that the first of the twelve “Articles of Amendment”, what we know today in common terms as “The Bill of Rights”, was, indeed, ratified by an 80% majority of the then fifteen States, back in 1792.

Article the First sets both a floor and ceiling on the size of Congressional Districts.  Those numbers represent the will and intent of those who penned the amendments we so revere.

In Constitutional law-making, it is the language voted in Congress that is passed to the State Legislatures for approval.  They do not modify it, or propose changes.  They are given the amendment as whole cloth, to vote “Yea” or “Nay”.  It is the original language as voted in Congress that is the language, indeed, the letter, of our law.

A scrivener’s error has been proven to have occurred in passing the proposed “Articles” to the several States…an error that has persisted in history.  (actually, there are/were several).  The aforementioned research ALSO clearly demonstrates the error, and it’s recognition after the fact, as shown by actions taken in history. That error is of no consequence from a legal perspective, as the Amendment as voted in Congress is the Law of the land, once ratified.  That language does not, incidentally, place the size of our House as “so regulated by Congress”…in fact, it was worded in such a way as to remove any hands from the process – leaving it “so regulated by MATHEMATICS”.

Many don’t like what this does to the size of the House, or to the expense – the most vehement detractors are those with the most to lose…the supporters of the present 435 legislators seated – who, with a correctly apportioned House, represent only slightly more than 7% of what should be the “Committee of the Whole”.

Most would agree that the greatest problem in our National government is the undue influence of outsiders on the actions of our elected representatives – lobbyists and big-dollar donors who buy control of the weaker among our elected public servants.

Congress is sent to Washington,not to Rule, but to Serve – and by “Serve”, I mean the people of the District,not the donors – not the PARTY, and not the Lobbyists and Special Interests.

They won’t like it. They’ll tell you we’re wrong.

The evidence of your own eyes will prove otherwise.

They’ll cite the costs as cause not to take action, while wasting Trillions.

Freedom isn’t free.

If you were ever unsure of that, take a walk through your local cemetery on Memorial Day.

The special interests, the lobbyists, and the party bosses can’t readily control a sudden surge of nearly 6000 additional elected officials – and, with a district size of 50,000, they won’t be able to maintain the false majority of the two-party system.

We need to stop thinking of ourselves as “Republicans” or“Democrats” before we think of ourselves as “Americans”.  “My party, right or wrong” has no place in a true Democratic Republic – and that, after all, is what we really are.  We’re neither a true Democracy, nor a true Republic.  The hybrid government devised by our founding fathers was something entirely new.  We’re not one, or the other. We’re both –which was why Jefferson preferred the name“Democratic-Republican” to “Anti-Federalist”.

Conveniently edited out of our children’s history books,that…and our parents’, and grandparents’, as well.

Article the First is ratified.  We had a decennial census in 2010.  It is the role – nay, the REQUIREMENT, under our present laws, for the Department of Commerce to apportion the House of Representatives according to Article the First…not according to some Statute proposed in the 1910’s to further disenfranchise non-machine voters.  Our Constitution trumps any so-called Statute.

Every person presently in Congress who served in 2012 already knew these facts.  We told them, and SHOWED them.

The media knows.  We told them, and SHOWED them.

The Party bosses are afraid. This means they lose control – control of the purse strings, and of the ability to continue to pretend to do their jobs while remaining obstructionist, maintaining a status quo that favors only their benefactors,and their anointed.

They can do nothing about this.  Those seats are ours.

In fact, once ratified, an amendment cannot even be rescinded – not by Congress, and not by any State Legislature – or any other body in government.  To withdraw an amendment from our laws, the Constitution must then be further amended.  That is the process.  It requires proposal of a NEW amendment – and the ratification of that Amendment by 38 of our present 50 States.

Would you re-elect someone who intentionally diluted your freedom?

We were to have had no Congressional Districts larger than 50,000 persons, and none smaller than 40,000 persons, ever since the House of Representatives grew to more than 200 members. That was, and remains, the final increase allowed by our Constitution.

That is not what we have. It is what we are due.

We demand it.

Article the First doesn’t change the Constitution.  It IS ALREADY a part of it.

Every single sitting Congressperson, and every single Senator, and all of our elected officials, take a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution – again, AS IT IS – not as they might like it to be.

Our Constitution has invested the citizens of this Nation with the ultimate authority – not the Congress. It serves as a bit in the mouth of our elected government, with the reins firmly held by “We, the People”, twitched at the polls, as necessary.

True proportional representation was, and remains, our inheritance…paid for in blood.

Those seats are ours.

Take them.




Stewardship in Environmental Policy

 

“Stewardship” in the Pinelands.

When it was initially formed in 1979, the Pinelands Environmental Commission was charged with “Stewardship” of the Lands under the protection of the Pinelands Protection Act. The Comprehensive Management Plan put forth by the Commission received final approval by Secretary Andrus of the Department of the Interior in January of 1981.  From the early days of the Pinelands Commission until today, their role has been that of “Stewards” of this vast National Resource.

“Stewardship”.  That word seems to have a very different meaning  in the minds of many of our leaders, today,than it did nearly four decades ago.

Stewardship is oversight or management for “protection” and “preservation”,for the common good.

Stewardship is NOT “exploitation” for private gain.

The expectation in forming the Pinelands Environmental Commission was that it would act to protect and preserve the acreage under its care.  It is not unlike the stewardship of a church – (and churches use the same word) – referring to “stewardship” of their missions, their flock, and their facility.

To be blunt, any minister, pastor, or priest will tell you that “Stewardship” may be THE most unpopular subject for a sermon – so I expect this article to be treated as pontification.

So be it.  Maybe it is.

Stewardship comes from a leadership paradigm.  Exploitation comes from a paradigm of social narcissism.

Some of the members of the commission take their role very seriously – as they should.  They continue to educate themselves as our knowledge of the ecosystem they are charged with protecting increases.  They rely on the wisdom and advice of others more expert in a particular field than they, and seek to make informed decisions.

Others of more recent vintage are, to all appearances, nothing more than the pawns of our broken system – puppets in the bi-partisan failure-ship that “rules” our State.

They are appointed purely as tools of the corrupt political machines, rather than as conservators or caretakers…”stewards”, if you will.  Their placement is wholly at the direction of those, elected and “un-elected”, who have carved out their petty kingdoms herein NJ…and wish to insure their continued rule.

The deck is carefully being stacked to pull the teeth of the Comprehensive Management Plan.  The plan is adaptable, but it was put in place to preserve the Pinelands as the invaluable resource that it is.  It is the linchpin of the protections enforced by the Commission.

A specific agenda has been undertaken – using smaller issues, such as the pipeline, to provide a fatal chink in the armor that is the CMP – a flaw that will allow exploitation of the whole region.

That agenda is to convince the majority of the members to pass through the “memorandum of agreement” (“MOA”) process to a private entity through a government office – because, once that is given through to one entity, others can sue for similar treatment – and the State would be put in the position of having to comply.

Once the precedent is set, once Pandora’s box has been opened, all the demons will escape, leaving behind only “hope”.

I don’t want to “hope” that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren are only able to learn of the great outdoors from books and the internet, as part of a HISTORY class.

Those lands are held “in trust”, for generations to come.  Don’t let that trust be broken.

“Trust” – another word that, by all definitions, certain present corrupt leaders could care less about.

They are who we seek to supplant.

Join us.

“Stand for what’s right, or settle for what’s left” – Frederick John LaVergne for Congress, NJ CD3