Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
On Saturday, September 8, 2001, John Hammell, President of the International Advocates for Health Freedom, addressed a letter of concern to Bob Schulz. Schulz is the Board Chairman of the We the People Foundation.
The letter was concerning issues surrounding the Council on Domestic Relations 1993 opposition to several state resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention.
We will present Mr. Hammell's correspondence first, followed by Jackie Patru's response to Mr. Hammell.
Lastly, at the bottom of this page, we have a report by Sandra Styka, an attorney who Jackie met at a speaking engagement. Ms. Styka opposes regionalism and warns of Bob Schulz' associations and positions on the issues.
To: Robert L. Schulz, Chairman of the Board, We the People Foundation, Inc.
I was trying to drum up some support for the Freedom Tour being spearheaded by Roland Crouteau to call attention to the Congressional Hearing to "investigate the IRS" that your organization has managed to secure in Washington DC to be held on September 25-26, when a number of Virginia Patriots have expressed some very serious concerns about you and the We the People Foundation, which have now given me pause. I was going to try to help Roland Crouteau when he makes his whistestop visit to Richmond, but I am now unsure as to whether or not I will follow through with this pending your response to these questions.
Some very serious concerns have arisen regarding the legitimacy of the We the People Foundation that will need to be thoroughly addressed by you if you wish to dispell concern that all you are running is a controlled opposition group. These concerns take on added weight as we approach the holding of a Congressional Hearing in Washington DC on September 25-26 that you organized to examine the legality of the income tax, due to some very real concerns as to what might replace it. In other words: we have the devil we know, vs the devil we don't know, and we also have some serious questions as to whether or not there is any connection between you personally and the Rockefeller Foundation. Could you be trying to usher in either a national sales tax or a flat tax, neither of which are constitutional?
Is it true that in 1993, when there was a resolution afoot to hold a Constitutional Convention "Con Con" that would have enabled various ruling elite factions (the Rockefellers) et al to tamper with the language of the US Constitution, that when you were contacted by Jackie Patru, talk show host of the Short Wave Radio Show "Sweet Liberty" [http://www.sweetliberty.org WWCR 3.215 MHz 10-11 pm eastern time] and requested to assist her in calling attention to this threat that rather than take the time to do the one simple thing requested by her to alert more people, you stated to her that you were "too busy"? I think it would be a very good idea for you to go on Jackie's radio show to publicly address these questions.
Virginia Cropsey, JD of Red Hen Resources, http://www.getawarrant.com/ , has expressed some serious reservations as to your intentions to Jackie Patru, so I would like to know if it is true that you weren't willing to help Jackie, and also Sandy Styka, JD to generate public opposition to a con con in '93, and if so, WHY weren't you willing to help them?
Moreover, from your website at http://givemeliberty.org/foundation/docs/certbylaws.htm, I see that you were indeed behind an effort in '97 to conduct a constitutional convention "con con" in the state of New York, and that it was defeated at the polls. You state on your website that a con-con would have been a desirable thing, something which is open to serious question, both for the State of New York, and also for the US Constitution.
Many feel that the Rockefeller Foundation was directly behind the effort in New York to hold the con con which you you [sic] state on your website would be a desirable thing.
Sandy Styka, JD played a major role in killing your efforts to get a con con in New York.
Your Foundation spent a staggering amount of money to place ads in USA Today which challenged the legality of the income tax, yet you were strangely SILENT regarding concerns which many Americans have regarding the stranglehold held on this country by the Federal Reserve.... Why did you have nothing to say about that in your ads?
Your Foundation is a non profit organization registered in Albany New York. Does this mean that all financial records from the Foundation are publicly available for scrutiny, and if so, exactly how can one go about seeing them? I would especially like to know if your Foundation had any large contributions from any private Foundations such as the Rockeller Brothers Fund that helped you pay for the USA Today ads- can you make a complete disclosure of how you are funded?
Although I do not trust the United States, Inc., and feel that in many ways the Constitution was a scam from the word go, I still have no faith that a Constitutional Convention con con would in any way be a good idea, and I have to wonder, given your history, if your ultimate intent with this Congressional investigation might be to use this situation to try to push for one??? I really don't think the idea that this is what you are trying to do is far fetched at all given your apparent history, but I do await your response to this. Things don't just "happen" in politics. If something happens, its because someone PLANNED it that way... The ruling elite can keep any congressional hearing they want from occurring, I have seen this personally in my own recent efforts to get an oversight hearing on Capital Hill (it was whitewashed.)
So....... you tell me Mr.Schulz...... WHY are they allowing YOU to hold THIS hearing re the IRS on September 25-26 when they have infinite ability to BLOCK such hearings from being held??? Are you perhaps attempting to set the spark off to trigger a constitutional convention "con-con"?
If I were the Rockellers, or other ruling elite, and I wanted to engage in a covert action to try to hasten the move to global governance, I would try to work through an organization exactly like yours, because the most powerful form of control is covert control- thats how controlled opposition groups operate- there is always a veneer of respectability that shield such groups from the sort of inquiry that I am now making. Hell, as recently as a few weeks ago I sent out an email myself encouraging everyone to get behind your efforts. I am now having second thoughts pending your response to these concerns.
Your immediate response to these questions would therefor be most deeply appreciated. Please email me back, and cc your response to Jackie Patru, Norman Singleton in Congressman Ron Paul's office, Virginia Cropsey, JD (firstname.lastname@example.org), and Joseph Farrah at World Net Daily. You will find their email addresses above in the cc line of this message. I am posting this email on the IAHF website and will gladly give your anticipated response equal time. If you do not respond, any lack of a response would be conspicuous to many other Americans, as well as other freedom loving people all over the world who I feel certain share in my heartfelt concerns. I sincerely hope I am incorrect in my concerns, because I would LIKE to believe in what you are doing....
For GENUINE Freedom,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
POB 625 Floyd VA 24091
Jackie's response to John Hammell:
Dear John... I'm copying 'all' on this response to make two minor corrections in your letter (below) to Bob Schulz, and to decline the suggestion you made that he appear on the Sweet Liberty broadcast by way of response. I wouldn't care to have him on the air with us.
1) You stated that: I would like to know if it is true that you weren't willing to help Jackie, and also Sandy Styka, JD to generate public opposition to a con con in '93, and if so, WHY weren't you willing to help them? I didn't know Sandy Styka in '93, John, and have no idea if she was opposing the states' calls for a Federal Constitutional Convention in '93.
Mrs. Styka's concern was the New York State Con-Con in 1997 which Schulz was promoting. I'm attaching a file here (one in Corel Word Perfect and one in Microsoft Word) which is a report written by Sandra in 1997 to warn the people in New York State about the dangers of the con-con; the influence of the Rockefeller Institute in the writing of the proposed amendments; along with Bob Schulz' involvement.
2) You asked Schulz why the Federal Reserve wasn't mentioned in their USA TODAY ads. The first ad did not mention the FR. I don't know about others, however, the 2-16-2001 edition did so.
You'll appreciate the information from Mrs. Styka, as transcribed in the
attached file(s). I'm glad you called me yesterday. I'd forgotten the report
was in my files. What occurs to me is that there is nothing in this world
we can trust because it's all smoke and mirrors. Illusion.
-- Jackie --
I'll be sending this to our webmaster for posting on www.sweetliberty.org along with Mrs. Styka's report.
The following is the Styka report, mentioned above, beginning with an introduction by Jackie Patru:
Sunday, September 9, 2001
From: Jackie Patru
The following is a transcript of a faxed report by Sandra K. Styka, Grand Island, New York, who I met at a meeting in New York state where we both spoke to a group on the dangers of Regional Government. At that meeting (sometime in 1997) she also warned the attendees of the dangers of a potential state constitutional convention and mentioned that Bob Schulz of ACTA was strongly urging the members of his association to vote for the con-con at the polls. According to the present New York State Constitution, the question of a con-con must come before the voters every 10 or 20 years.
The name Schulz immediately rang a bell for me, because I had contacted Schulz in 1993 when the New York state legislature along with 11 other states had introduced legislation calling for a Federal Con-Con. Since 32 of the required 34 states had already passed con-con resolutions, the proponents for a convention were expecting to get the required number that year. They didn't, and no thanks to Schulz who informed me that he was too busy to circulate a one-page flyer to his All County Taxpayers Association members. I had been informed that Schulz was well-networked across the state, so his refusal in the face of my urgent pleas to help could have had disastrous results.
The contents of Mrs. Styka's report reveal information regarding Robert Schulz of the We The People organization (or foundation, whatever they call themselves), regarding Schulz' involvement in supporting a New York state Constitutional Convention and changes to the New York state constitution, recommended by the Rockefeller Institute of Government.
The report gives us, I believe, a grand insight into the REAL Bob Schulz.
When the first USA TODAY ad appeared I was puzzled by the absence of any information on the Federal Reserve System, or the Federal Reserve Banks. My questions to Devvy Kidd, whom I've known for nearly ten years now and have always held in the utmost esteem, left me with more questions. When asked, why in that full-page, text-intensive ad, there was no mention of the Federal Reserve, I was told by Devvy that "Bob didn't want to" because he didn't want to bring in too many aspects and confuse the people (or something close to that).
I asked Devvy if that means Bob makes all the decisions for the group, and it was explained that the "funding" for the ads was given under certain requirements. Bob controls the spending and Irwin Schiff's web site had to be listed as a source for further information.
In the February 16, 2001 ad the FRS was mentioned, along with as I see it some very subtle "brainwashing." Maybe it was not so subtle for those who have "eyes to see." The statement: "We cannot allow the IRS to seize the property of its citizens, ruin them financially, harm their families, and induce fear in their hearts while refusing to show proof of authority."
An unsuspecting person would read, without conscious awareness, that we are the property of the IRS and that they would have the right to induce fear and financially ruin us if they would only show us their authority to do so.
Here's another, and there are more like it: "We must demand the truth about the Federal Reserve and the tax laws, and that the IRS heed obedience to the tax code and the well-established principles of due process."
Since We The People have asserted that the Individual income tax is unconstitutional, why would we demand that the IRS heed obedience to the tax code?
A group which calls itself Red Hen Research has an excellent web site at www.getawarrant.com and Virginia Cropsey, apparently the founder, has expressed her own concerns. She would be worth contacting and the site is worth visiting.
Here is Sandra Styka's report, which I received by fax in May of 1999 upon my request for information on Bob Schulz. A call from John Hammell yesterday jogged my memory. I regret not having shared this information sooner because I have the same concerns that many others have expressed regarding the up-coming "Congressional Hearings," which Schulz allegedly forced by threatening to "starve himself to death" if they didn't. Are we supposed to believe that any member of the U.N. Congress would give a damn how many of us are starving?
The concern: What's Schulz up to? The real agenda? Maybe the fact that Americans are awakening by the droves to the fact that it is true: there is no law that says we have to file. Watch out for a "National" tax of some kind which would of course require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Schulz will probably disappear into the woodwork in that event. Do be careful of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing. -- Jackie --
SANDRA K. STYKA
Attorney and Counselor at Law
381 Ontario Street
Buffalo, New York
RE: Chautauqua conference on Regional governance held June 1-4 1997
The enclosed topics regarding regional government were not presented, indeed their very existence was never mentioned at this conference dubbed by the Buffalo News as "the biggest, most detailed event on regionalism that had ever been held." (Buffalo News June 5, 1997).
They [enclosed topics] are: Article 52 of the United Nations Charter entitled Regional arrangements; the Executive Order 11647 of President Nixon creating multi-State regional borders; Nelson A. Rockefeller Executive Order 44 establishing New York State multi-county Regional borders and the Final Report of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government on Constitutional Revision regarding the establishment of a border commission and revision of home rule. None of this was mentioned although the Rockefeller Institute members and directors led the conference.
As the buffalo News now blames "politicians" for "failure" to have regional government you should know that nearly every speaker acknowledged that regional government is usually, if not always voted down by the constituents, and therefore some form of "top down force or 'a heavy diet of carrots and sticks' is necessary."
You should also know that Ms. Ireland of the Buffalo News, a moderator at the conference stated the News has "had a long standing campaign for regional government." It is unfortunate the News has asserted that attendees left the conference well informed and pledging action as "budding regionalists" when, astonishingly, in the four days of the conference not a single piece of paper was given to attendees nor any mention made of this information.
Nearly all conference panelists are noted contributors to Neil Peirce's Book Citistates. The speakers were: Neil Peirce, William Dodge, Theodore Hershberg, Lenneal Henderson, David Rusk and Curtis Johnson. As such I enclose a summary of quotes from Mr. Peirce's book.
The remaining panelists were primarily from the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, namely: Director Richard Nathan; Gerald Benjamin, director of the project on the Modern governorship and a member along with Mr. Dodge of the Rockefeller Institute's advisory committee for the Local Government Restructuring Project.
With regard to "top down force," the speakers Gerald Benjamin and Peter Gallie were very blunt. Unfortunately, I believe Mr. Bob Schulz, the non-lawyer of taxpayer lawsuit fame who now leads the "We the People's Congress" in a call for a New York State constitutional convention is similarly like minded.
On this point, I might add, that at an earlier meeting in Buffalo where Mr. Schulz was invited to speak before the Frontier Democrats and called for a convention, Mr. Gallie, a professor at Canisius College, said informally but publically that he favors the elimination of the states, and that he has all Mr. Schulz' briefs.
Mr. Schulz has testified before the Rockefeller Commission on Constitutional Revision and seeks to implement the same changes as were attempted when Nelson A. Rockefeller headed the convention in 1967, namely unicameralism, thereby concentrating all legislative State power in one house.
At the Chautauqua conference Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Gallie also called for a constitutional convention. Mr. Benjamin stated he was sorry the changes urged by Rockefeller in 1967 were not ratified. Mr. Gallie stated that he "agrees with everything Mr. Benjamin said."
Mr. Gallie stated he "agrees with Mr. Benjamin" and Mr. Benjamin stated that he agrees with the inclusion of a sentence in our constitution at Article IX home rule, which places the seat of power firmly in the state... not the people. The sentence is recommended in the Rockefeller Institute's Final Report of the Constitutional Revision Commission. This sentence says that all local government power is granted by the state.
I enclose a copy of it for your review. It is important to add that an answer to the question of whether they support inclusion of that sentence was very difficult to obtain as the moderator would not allow the panelists to respond. It was only by a demand for an answer that a response was given, and then only by Mr. Benjamin stating "yes I do", then [was] interrupted whereupon Mr. Gallie was happily excused from answering.
[hand written note at bottom of page by Mrs. Styka]
NOTE: Peter Gallie, present at Chautauqua (as a speaker) and on commission. At Buffalo Frontier Democrats debate yea or nay for convention he told me he works with Schulz reviewing his briefs. Gallie professor at Canisius College teaches pre-law, political science, wrote book on NYS Constitutional History.
[Hand written note at top of next page by Mrs. Styka]
Permission granted to use this as news release and publish.
[signed] Sandra Styka
This November you will be asked to vote yes or no, for or against having a New York State constitutional convention. If a yes vote is obtained, the Rockefeller Institute which has kept its experts busy since 1993 drafting studies in preparation for this convention intends to change our constitution to eliminate the grantor of power our creator and reverse the seat of power from the People to the state, by inserting this into our New York State Constitution.
"Replace it with a provision that simply grants to local governments all powers not denied to local governments by the state"
(The Final Report of the Temporary New York State Commission on Constitutional Revision; Rockefeller Institute of Government, page 62, ISBN: 0-914341-39-1. 1995)
This change obliterates the Declaration of Independence which states: "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to... assure... the powers to which the laws of... God entitle them." We are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" and we "institute government to secure them."
These very words of the Declaration of Independence were written into the Preamble of the very first New York State Constitution in 1777 by the people of the local governments.
New York State did not create us we created New York State. In considering our state constitution, we must not commit the mistake of supposing that because individual rights are guarded and protected by it, they must be considered as owing their origin to it.
These instruments measure the powers granted to the state; they do not measure the rights of the governed. In America power is granted to the state not by the state.
Nearly every speaker at the Chautauqua conference on regional government referred to the use of force as needed to implement regional government. Most of the speakers were part of the Rockefeller Institute's Commission. If the Rockefeller Institute makes the state the grantor of power the state can revoke its grant. Forced mergers of local government will be possible.
In fact another study is underway of every state constitution in the country for constitutional impediments to forced mergers of local governments. Six States are complete. I have the 95 page draft; it is entitled THE CONSTITUTIONAL FEASIBILITY OF METROPOLITAN REGIONAL WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION MODELS IN SIX STATES (January 21, 1997).
Reseating power into the state is recommended in this study in order to obtain mergers of local government without the vote of the people. The Rockefeller Institute=s Final Report on page 16 also recommends adding to our constitution:
"A boundary commission with power to eliminate local government"
The Rockefeller Institute's influence is wide and deep. The "Peoples Congress", created last year by Bob Schulz, a non-lawyer of taxpayer lawsuit fame, has co-opted patriotic taxpayers to drive a yes vote. Schulz supports the identical changes Nelson A. Rockefeller sought when he ran a constitutional convention in 1967, among them centralization of power by eliminating one house of the legislature.
Although Mr. Schulz testified in 1995 before the Rockefeller commission in support of a yes vote, in a debate last May in buffalo as to whether to vote yes or no he never mentioned the Rockefeller Final Report on Constitutional Revision.
Constitutional professor Mr. Peter Gallie also a member of the Rockefeller Commission attended that Buffalo debate stating he "has all Schulz' legal briefs," and "believes in the elimination of the States."
Mr. Gallie was a speaker shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Gerald Benjamin at the Regional Government conference in Chautauqua. Both are members of the Rockefeller Commission and Mr. Benjamin is on the research committee for revisions. Mr. Gallie following Mr. Benjamin's call for a convention, and his lament that the Rockefeller revisions were not ratified in 1967 said at the conference that he "agrees with everything Mr. Benjamin said."
Mr. Benjamin, was read the Rockefeller Report's sentence by me and was asked as was Mr. Gallie, "Yes or no do you support the insertion of this in our constitution?" Benjamin refused to answer. An answer was demanded, whereupon he asked to "see the paper up close." When I was close enough he replied, "Yes I do." The moderator, hearing this response, interrupted and prevented further response, relieving Mr. Gallie from answering.
When change is attempted, two things are needed: the change and the changers. I believe Mr. Schulz's longstanding assignment has been to create changers the Peoples Congress to demand a yes vote. The changes have already been made and are waiting for us.
No Country can live that destroys local self-government.
The cradle of liberty is our towns. From their inception our towns were governed under self-instituted powers derived from God. If New York holds a convention this too may be gone.