Redress is not a political matter/ the first amendment gives LEGAL protection to:   all religion, that is functionally true (not strictly a social excuse)/ all speech not defined by hate, and the intent to disavow or destroy someone else’s life/ all press and journalistic intent to help society rather than destroy it/ and to the people themselves, that they may NOT feel a need to wage war against their own government, but will be listened to: WILL be respected as the true owners here.  That is redress, and it is a functional legal tool, for the people themselves/ through the court.  The only actual legal defense against a demand for redress through the court is: that there is no cause for concern, no crisis to be avoided or examined for truth as to a threat to or against this people. It is the jury (speaking for all the people in the land, as a beginning)  that decides this question/ not the court.  Redress is the law, and the law provides it to the people themselves, as their own proof of democracy “WE THE PEOPLE”, are the owners. Procedure has been established for this case, therefore the court has no excuse; because it has no prior case to declare against the procedure requested. Its only option is to declare a “higher court” must make this decision/ anything less is an act of criminal conspiracy to avoid the law, and steal its purpose from the people.  Or simply accept the case, and let it go forward in this court of the people.  Prove me wrong.