Parental Rights Relief

Parents and Children Will Finally Receive the Federal Judicial Relief To Which They Are Rightfully entitled.

Immunity is all but defeated and you can expect it to disappear soon. You too can defeat immunity and get the relief you deserve whenthe government violates your rights right now today. Everything necessary to defeat immunity is already in place.

Defeating judicial immunity is NOT a direct family law issue but judicial immunity is the primary reason that parents are unable to getfair vindication of their federal rights in the federal courts. Because state court judges are the sole state official tasked withregulating the state’s Civil Law PostDivorce Child Custody Scheme, with enforcing the scheme, and with adjudicating the rights ofindividuals wronged by the scheme, they are the only state official who can be sued to vindicate federally protected parental rights ina 42 U. S. C. 1983 civil rights action against the policies, against the regulation of the policies, and against the enforcement of thepolicies.

Judicial immunity is the absurd excuse that the federal courts assert to prevent parents from receiving federal justiciable relief fromunlawful state family law practices. When it is finally and fully destroyed, which I am actively involved in pursuing in my personalcase before the federal courts, parents and their children will finally be able to receive the relief from illegal state actions towhich they are entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The BackStory

I’ve been putting off writing this post for a long time now. You see, I filed a civil rights suit against the city I lived in for 18years and some of the cops in that city who showed up at my home, knocked on my door, then broke in and violently assaulted me when Irefused to allow them to unlawfully search me on my front porch.

Just in case you were NOT certain, it is absolutely illegal for them to search you against your will when they knock on your door andask to speak with you. And just to be certain, I had NOT done anything even remotely illegal that night.

I knew this at the time because I study Supreme Court cases for their impact on family law, and I had studied the most recent cases fromthe Supreme Court on this very topic which were easily old enough for the cops to have full notice.

This relates to immunity because the cops and the Chief of Police filed motions claiming the defense of governmental immunity from suitand from damages. This more than eight months ago during the earliest stage of the case where we are just confirming pleadings to moveforward into discovery. We are in the second round of this earliest stage and the court, at least the magistrate, has already ruled thatI can move forward on some elements of my suit but recommended that other elements be denied based on the claimed immunity defense.

The Technical Isssues

Certainly, I challenged the Magistrate’s findings before the District Court. That was back around October of 2022. Today, in the middleof July, the District Court still has NOT ruled on the magistrate’s report. Normally, this takes one to three weeks, not more than eightmonths.

Why has it taken the District Court so long to return its ruling and why is the District Court desperately trying to find a way aroundmy objections?

The answer is very simple. The District Court shares with the defendants a pecuniary (financial) interest in the outcome of my challengeto the immunity defense. Both the Court and the defendants receive a financial benefit from not having to defend themselves in civilrights suits that is conveyed to them by the immunity defense.

Why is this a problem for the District Court?

That answer is also very simple, 28 U. S. C. 455 Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge creates a staggering problem forthe federal district court. You may have heard of this statute in reference to the questionable financial dealings of Supreme Courtjustices. You will notice from the title, that the statute covers “justices” and judges of every stripe. It directly targets judges andmakes certain judicial actions a federal crime.

There are two elements to this statute:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which hisimpartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: …

(5) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financialinterest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantiallyaffected by the outcome of the proceeding;

28 U.S.C. 455 Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge

Constitutional Crisis

I asserted this statute against my judge under both (a) and (b) because my judge can NOT be impartial regarding my challenge to theimmunity defense where both he and the defendants share a financial interest in the outcome of my challenge. By operation of federallaw, if the immunity defense goes forward, he must recuse himself.

This raises a constitutional crisis issue for the federal judiciary because, not only are they bound by this statute specifically anddirectly, but they are also bound by the mandate of jurisdiction that, if the court has jurisdiction, the court has an unflinching dutyto exercise that jurisdiction and the court is bound by the Supremacy Clause mandate to protect constitutional rights as its highestorder objective.

We all have a fundamental right of access to the state and federal courts to vindicate our federal rights. 42 U. S. C. 1983 provides mewith a specific “right to relief” against “every person” who violated my rights, not only that night but in the fully two yearsthereafter where I was restrained of my liberty because of those violations of my rights.

§ 42 U. S. C. 1983 reads in full:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District ofColumbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof tothe deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injuredin an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicialofficer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless adeclaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congressapplicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

42 U.S.C. 1983

Non-Justiciable Relief

The immunity from suit defense is a claim that I do NOT have a right to the relief that §1983 provides because the government employeesare immune from its reach, even though it directly targets then. However, the claim of immunity from suit as a defense is nonjusticiablewhen read in conjunction with 28 U. S. C. 455.

Nonjusticiable is a legal term meaning that the courts have NO authority, read jurisdiction, to provide that particular relief. Infamily law, considering the interests of a nonlitigant child, who lacks standing to be a litigant, is nonjusticiable because courts onlyhave judicial jurisdiction over specific legal conflicts. Without standing, the courts have exactly zero judicial jurisdiction toconsider the child’s interests or to provide relief in those interests because providing relief to nonlitigants is NOT a power thatcourts have. Best Interest does nothing at all legally to resolve the conflict between the parents because it provides NO legal basis tobind either parent.

In terms of immunity, granting the Immunity Defense is likewise nonjusticiable.

Because the judge and the defendant share a pecuniary interest in preserving the status quo of the immunity defense against by right torelief under §1983, the judge can NOT be impartial on the issue and must recuse or be in violation of federal law.

Judicial Independence a Double-Edged Sword

Contrary to what some magistrates may think, appellate courts cannot command lower courts to violate this federal law because that isalso nonjusticiable. More importantly for the lower courts, that command would do absolutely nothing to protect them from theconsequences of violating the law. It’s a bit like the Nuremberg trials where the defendants claimed that they were simply followingorders when they committed the horrible atrocities of the holocaust. That excuse didn’t work for them in Nuremberg, and it wouldn’t workfor any federal district court judge here today.

Courts make a big deal of their “independence” which protects them even against following controlling precedent from higher courts. Thehigher courts can overturn the lower court’s rulings, but the higher courts can NOT directly punish the lower courts for violating thatprecedent. Denying them promotions is about the extent of what can be done to them.

This “independence,” in this case, is a double-edged sword for them because it ensures that they cannot be commanded to violate federallaw. Should the district court violate 28 U. S. C. 455 they become criminals who hold more individual culpability for their actions thanany other individual in this country could.

Consequences Beyond Supreme Court’s Reach

Now 29 U. S. C. 455 has NO direct teeth. There are no statutory consequences for the district court violating this statute, but thatdoesn’t mean there are no consequences.

The consequences are political and completely outside the realm of Supreme Court control.

Federal judges have life-long jobs on “good behavior.” It isn’t difficult at all to find that violation of a federal law directlytargeting the judge’s judicial actions is “bad behavior” which is an impeachable offense.

This law has questionable teeth for Supreme Court justices as the political will necessary to impeach a federal court justice is veryhard to come by, but district court judges have NO such protections. They are highly vulnerable to political retribution and would beopening themselves up to a potential political firestorm should they violate this law.

Lower Federal Courts are Creatures of Congressional Law

It is important to keep in mind that the constitution does NOT create the federal judiciary directly.

The constitution creates the Supreme Court and gives that court complete control over all judicial matters, but it leaves establishingthe lower courts to Congress’ compete control. The federal judiciary is entirely created by federal law, NOT constitutional law. This isone of the many checks and balances to be found in our excellent constitutional scheme. Policy

The Immunity Doctrine is Pure Judicial Policy

Immunity from suit and from damages is entirely a judicially made policy. Even the Supreme Court refers to it as a policy choice NOT ajudicial holding. The Court has taken the power for itself to decide who is held accountable to the constitution and who is not. They,of course, gave judges the highest protection. Then they simply bought off all lesser government officials with just enough immunity toensure that they have a vested interest in keeping the illegal scheme going.

It is illegal because the Supreme Court has exactly zero policy making authority under the constitution. It can no more lawfullyestablish the immunity defense than it can create federal statutes. Citing very questionable references to English Common Law is ameaningless action when deciding questions of constitutional law because English Common Law was never ever designed to apply under aconstitutional scheme because, even to this day, England does NOT have a written constitution the way we do in America.

The problem with courts making policy is that when they do so, like with best interest, the court's deny you access to the courts tovindicate your rights by challenging the policy. The fact that the courts make the policy ensures that the courts are biased in favor oftheir own policy choices. This bias deprives them of jurisdiction as judges if challenged at the outset of proceedings.

Sovereignty, The King Can Do Wrong

Whether or not a government official working for a government, claiming absolute sovereignty, the way the British Parliament does, canlegitimately claim immunity from constitutional consequences has exactly zero bearing in a free nation where the government is freelyelected for the purpose, NOT to exercise sovereign control over its subjects, but rather to provide limited governance to ensure thatthe sovereign people can live together peacefully and prosperously with one another and with the outside world.

This is NOT, NOT, NOT a claim under the absurd Sovereign Citizen logic, which is fatally flawed for numerous reasons.

The Supreme Court explains it this way:

Our founding document begins by declaring that "We the People … ordain and establish this Constitution." At the time, that wasa radical claim, an assertion that sovereignty belongs not to a person or institution or class but to the whole of the people. Fromthat premise, the Constitution proceeded to vest the authority to exercise different aspects of the people's sovereign power indistinct entities. In Article I, the Constitution entrusted all of the federal government's legislative power to Congress. InArticle II, it assigned the executive power to the President. And in Article III, it gave independent judges the task of applyingthe laws to cases and controversies.

Supreme Court 2019

This is a claim that the United States Supreme Court has asserted many times over but the consequential logic of which it has neverapplied properly or fully. Does your neighbor have sovereign power over you? Can your neighbor do no wrong? Do ten of your neighborshave sovereign power over you? Can ten of your neighbors do no wrong? What about one hundred or one thousand? How many of yourneighbors, exactly, is required for this sovereign state power to appear from the either and take a tangible form that can do no wrong?

At what point does your neighbor threatening physical force against you, if you fail follow their orders, turn into the sovereign powerof the state to threaten physical force against you if you fail to follow the orders that some percentage of your neighbors issue? Doesthe mere opinion of a majority expressed through an election create a sovereign power from thin air?

Our Supreme Court adopts, entirely without question, more than 2,000 years of despotic claims by murdering despots asserting that theycan do no wrong as a matter of sovereign right and the Court adopts this absurdity NOT in defense of the American people but to be usedagainst the American people and the freedoms many fought and died for. The concept that the government as sovereign can do no wrong isantithetical to freedom and a popularly elected government. Sovereignty rests with the people in America. This is NOT a novel claim butrather a statement of the Supreme Court recognizing the reality of our constitutional scheme that was established through a democraticprocess as the will of the people, NOT a divine right of government.

Our government does NOT exist by divine right to rule over the people but is rather established by the people so that they might governinteractions between those free people, to enhance and to protect that freedom as well as to provide an environment where free peoplemight reasonably prosper.

Our government has zero legitimate claim of sovereignty over the American people but rather merely exercises sovereignty on behalf ofthe people as that sovereignty applies to other nations and other peoples who might interfere with the business of a free people.

Our Supreme Court readily acknowledges that the American people are a free sovereign people, but it also claims the sovereignty ofdespots, tyrants, and murderers for itself and for our government. The two concepts are absolutely and completely incompatible with oneanother.

The English King Could Commit NO Wrong, precisely as Blackstone explained, because the English King would quickly murder anyone whoclaimed that he could do wrong.

In fact, when Blackstone wrote his Commentaries on the English Common Law, he noted two very important things. First, that at the timeof his writing two parliamentarians were being imprisoned in the Tower of London by the king precisely because they openly challengedthe king, proving the despotic source of the phrase. Second, that when the king does do wrong, the people have the final and ultimateright to forcibly depose the king, as was done by the English Lords and recorded by the Magna Carte, which Blackstone described as theking being compelled to abdicate the throne.

The claim that the king can do no wrong is nothing more than a tyrannical claim by powerful despotic dictators willing to murder anyonewho claims otherwise. It is the claim of murdering despots, and it is shameful that our Supreme Court aligns itself with murderingdespots in this way.

Not only is it shameful but it directly repudiates the words of our Founding Fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.Words for which they were declared traitors and condemned to be hanged by King George if they could be caught.

That document proclaimed 28 specific wrongs directly attributed to King George himself, who held direct control over the Colonies asKing. These wrongs by the king were distinguished from the wrongs committed by the English Parliament, that did NOT have direct controlover the Colonies.

Our Founding Fathers went to war with their king because their king did them wrong, and our Founding Fathers refused to abide thosewrongs committed by the English Sovereign, King George himself.

We exist as a nation precisely because King George committed wrongs against our people and against our Founding Fathers that they wereNOT prepared to tolerate.

The Supreme Court will point out that the Declaration of Independence is NOT a government document, and it forms NO part of our laws.While this is technically true, the Declaration of Independence is the founding document of our Nation of Free Individuals. It expressesthe will and the intent of our Founding Fathers upon pain of a traitor’s death for expressing that will and intent

It was those individuals who experienced the Revolutionary War, many of whom took active part in that war as active traitors to theirgovernment and to their king, who established our current limited government of free people.

It is patently absurd for the Supreme Court to declare that these men who fought for our freedoms against a king who they declared haddone them wrong would accept the Supreme Court’s current claim that the government can do no wrong. The statement by the Supreme Courtis absolute despotism with zero basis in law and nothing less.

The Supreme Court’s policy choice to protect itself and its judicial brethren by creating from whole cloth a policy of judicial immunityfrom willful, intentional, and malicious violation of our constitutional rights is pure arbitrary and capricious despotism.

The Court makes the claim that we could not fine enough judges to fill the roles without this grant of absolute judicial immunity. Ifthat is so, then every federal judge should be made to swear under oath that they would not accept the role without the immunity. Ithink they are lying and that NO judge of quality would ever admit to requiring absolute immunity to consider being a judge.

If the government can't NOT find enough judges to perform the role without granting them such absurd arbitrary power, then we are betteroff without judges. Any judge who requires such protection to be a judge, isn’t worthy of being a judge and should be immediatelydistrusted.

Governmental Immunity as Quid Pro Quo

The Supreme Court has simply bought off all other government officials by granting those officials just enough of the immunity tyrannyas necessary to purchase their allegiance, is nothing but an unlawful quid pro quo act of despotism. Other officials will NOT challengegovernment immunity because the Supreme Court has shared it with them, just enough to buy them off.

The Court claims that Congress could simply change the wording of 42 U. S. C. 1983 to be even more clear than it already is, but theCourt granted Congress far more immunity than the constitution grants them in what is, in my opinion, an outright buy off ensuring thatCongress can NOT change the wording because too many Congressmen want to preserve their own unlawful immunity, even if it is lessimmunity than the Court grants itself and other judges.

The Court lies to us, saying if Congress disagrees with our interpretation then Congress should just change the law. The Court says thiswithout fear because it knows it has effectively bought off Congress with limited immunity.

In general, I have great respect for the United State's Supreme Court. The Court gets it right far more often than it gets it wrong.However, in the case of immunity, the Court deserves zero respect because the Court is perpetrating a direct fraud on the Americanpeople, far exceeding its jurisdiction, and displaying a degree of arrogance that must be shutdown.

I have already made these claims in motions before the federal district court, it is time that I start making them publicly because thatfederal district court has been desperately searching for a way out of this for more than eight months now and you deserve to know aboutthis path that Congress has provided without any further delay.

Back to 28 U. S. C. 455

We find ourselves in a bit of détente with the federal courts. They want desperately to preserve the despotism of government immunitybut the only way they can do so is to openly reject the very basis for their existence.

Courts exist to resolve legal conflicts. The American People have a fundamental right to access the courts for vindication of theirfederal rights, just ask the Supreme Court. It is the Court who has established this fact as controlling law. §28 U. S. C. 455 requiresevery federal judge, who is faced with the claim of an immunity defense, to recuse themselves because of their personal financialinterest in the outcome of any challenge to this judicially established policy. Or, more appropriately, the federal court must declarethe immunity defense to be nonjusticiable relief that the district court has NO jurisdiction to provide.

The Supreme Court makes clear time and time again that statutes should NOT be read in isolation but rather in the context of all otherexisting law. In this context, 42 U. S. C. 1983 could NOT be clearer in its terms because the Supreme Court tells us to read §1983 inconjunction with 28 U. S. C. 455 so that their effects work together. When read the way the Court tells us to read statutes, Congresshas been exceptionally clear that the judicial policy of governmental immunity is illegal and that NO federal court judge has anyjurisdiciton whatsoever to grant immunity defense relief where the judge also benefits from the policy.

The immunity defense cannot be upheld by any federal court because doing so would require the federal judge to violate federal law whichthey have NO authority to do. Nor can the federal judges simply all agree to recuse themselves.

If every federal judge were to successively recuse themselves from my case or any other, they would negate the very purpose of theirexistence and deny me my fundamental right to vindicate the violation of my federally protected rights in a federal court.

This they dare NOT do lest they create a national scandal of epic proportions that would put their absurd immunity policy in thenational spotlight and force my arguments into the nightly news in the context of them refusing to perform their sworn constitutionalduty for their own personal financial benefit.

Further, recusal would NOT result in a grant of governmental immunity, and would only further violate the federal rights of litigants.

My Absolute Commitment to Individual Freedom at Any Cost

As I made absolutely clear, I will vigorously pursue charges, legally, politically, and publicly, against any federal judge who violates28 U. S. C. 455 in any case I have before the courts. It is my First Amendment protected right to speak out about government abuses ofpower such as the absurdity of government immunity. I will speak truth to power no matter the cost.

At the tender age of 17, I put my life at risk by becoming a Marine Corps Infantryman because of my profound belief in individualfreedom and because of my profound respect for the constitution as the document most likely to preserve and enhance those freedoms. Iliterally turned 18 on the same week I graduated from Infantry school. As a 17-year-old man-child, I wanted to ensure that I could claimto have purchased my freedoms, and the freedoms of others, by putting my life at risk as the collateral for the price of those freedoms.That early commitment has NOT wavered in the 39 years since then.

If any federal court judge believes I will back down from fully and vigorously asserting this right to speak truth to power, they are infor a surprise. My life has been committed to this cause for the last 39 or so years and, god willing, it will be for a considerabletime to come.

My primary goal in life is to live up to the standards freedom loving people who came before me have set and to die of old age havingfully met that commitment. If that means filing federal charges against a judge who violates 28 U. S. C. 455 and recruiting politicianswho have political axes to grind against the judge or against that judge's party affiliations to file impeachment charges, then so beit.

Impeachment being a political process, the Supreme Court can do nothing to protect district court judges from its effects. It will onlystoke greater discontent against the courts if it tries.

The Only Viable Outcome

The only legitimate judicial response to my legal arguments is to declare the defendants’ immunity defenses to be nonjusticiable, thelegal reasoning being that to grant the Defendants’ claim of immunity would require the court to violate federal law, while judgesrecusing en masse would violate their sworn duty as judges to protect constitutional rights.

Any other response by the courts would create a constitutional crisis of national proportions. During a time of historic low trust inthe federal judiciary and the Supreme Court facing political anger at the arrogant manner in which the court rejects basic ethics ingovernment principles, it would be a very bad move to make the very purpose of the federal judiciary the centerpiece of a constitutionalcrisis.

The only thing that could change this for the courts is for Congress to repeal 28 U. S. C. 455 and publicly declare that Congress has NOissue with federal judges being personally biased in legal proceedings over which they preside. While this might happen at some point, Idoubt seriously, that in today’s climate of extreme dissatisfaction with the federal judiciary, that Congress would take such action.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Justice delayed is justice denied. My justice against government agents who broke into my home, violently assaulted me, arrested me forno apparent reason, and left my wife to clean my blood from the floor is NOT just the financial compensation for my financial losses andmy pain and suffering. I want all government officials to gain a healthy fear of violating fundamental rights of the people.

In true Marine Corps fashion, when attacked, I attack back with a focused ferocity that my enemies cannot hope to match, and I go afterthat which they hold most dear with tactics they can NOT anticipate. Nothing and nobody, short of death, will stop me from this mission.I was never called upon to defend liberty on a foreign battlefield, my mission then is to defend liberty from its domestic enemies. Iintend to perform that duty to the utmost of my considerable abilities.

Call it fanatism is you like, but you live in a country established by fanatics, and beyond living up to the very high standards myMarine Corps brothers and sisters have set over the last 250 years, I strive to live up to the standards set by our fanatical FoundingFathers.

Born Followers

You won’t find many attorneys willing to carve out a path in opposition to entrenched authority. Unlike in the movies and on TV, mostattorneys don’t really like to fight, and they certainly don’t like to take the risk of speaking truth to power. They are, however, verygood at following paths that others have blazed.

What I am beginning to show you here is the path to suing divorce court judges in federal courts for their violation of our parentalrights and for the irreparable injury they cause children every day by depriving them of fit parents for NO legitimate reason.

I expect that no matter which way my case goes, the issue will be appealed all the way to the top. I certainly will NOT stop until Ihave won this battle at the highest possible level.

NO More Delay

I have given the federal district court eight months to do what it should have done in three weeks. I have waited patiently giving duerespect to the federal courts, which on the whole have earned a great deal of legitimate respect, but I will wait NO Longer.

I can only presume that an eight-month delay is caused only by the federal district's searching for any means possible to preserve theimmunity defense that it personally benefits from, and that impermissible judicial bias is the only reason for the delay.

I had hoped to promote this path following an honorable decision by the federal district court. I will wait NO Longer.

Conclusion

Government immunity is an unlawful despotic scam perpetrated by the judiciary and I will gladly share the means to destroy this scam toanyone who cares to listen.

This has nothing to do with the outcome of my case and I don’t expect that anything I do publicly will have any effect on my case. Thisis about assembling with others to petition the government publicly for redress of grievances. It is about the public fight forfundamental rights regardless of the outcome of my personal case.

This is about helping others who have been wronged by government officials to fight against those officials and against the corruptsystem that protects them from consequences for their crimes.

The cops who broke into my house, in the complete absence of jurisdiction to do so, committed crimes against me and against my wife.Rather than prosecute the criminals who wear badges, the Denton County Texas District Attorney attempted to charge me with a crime andfor two years attempted to threaten me into a plea deal when I had done nothing wrong. This was open conspiracy to subvert justice bycovering up the crimes of government officials.

For this action, I seek in my case to have his immunity stripped from him and join him to this suit for his criminal actions. I plan toensure that his name and the names of the officers at fault are forever linked to the universal removal of government immunity fromAmerican history.

I seek publicly to place every government official in this country on notice that they will NO longer be protected from the consequencesof their criminal actions by a corrupt federal judiciary intent on subverting justice on a grand scale.

The only way I can do this is to share with each and every one of you the simple path that permits you to take their power from themprotecting your child in the process.

As angry as I am for what they did to me and to my child, this is more about helping you protect yourself and your child from governmentofficials who seek to hurt you for their own gain.

Sue your state child custody judge in federal court for their unconstitutional actions against you and challenge your state’s familycode as being an unconstitutional violation of parental and child rights. Our materials provide a wealth of information from which tomake these arguments.

When your judge asserts his or her immunity from suit as a defense against your suit, object to the federal court providing thenonjusticiable relief your child custody judge is requesting and let the federal judge know that you will file federal charges againstthem and pursue political justice if they violate 28 U. S. C. 455.

Do NOT threaten any federal judge for any lawful action. That would give them means to attack you. Threats of unlawful action or threatsto retaliate against a judge for thier lawful actions will get you into serious trouble. Simply assert your First Amendment right tofile criminal charges against them and to seek political accountability against them for their criminal violations of federal law bypetitioning the government for redress of legitimate grievances. Inform them that, even today under existing law, immunity does NOTpermit them to violate statutory law.

The First Amendment is very clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redressof grievances.

U. S. Constitution, Amendment the First.