home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Software Vault: The Gold Collection
/
Software Vault - The Gold Collection (American Databankers) (1993).ISO
/
cdr20
/
fedzone.zip
/
APPEND-J.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-01-21
|
125KB
|
3,419 lines
Appendix J
Petitions to Congress
Page J - 1 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Reader's Notes:
Page J - 2 of 56
Appendix J
Text of Prepared Statement
Read Aloud at Community Meeting
Sponsored by Representative Barbara Boxer
by
Mitch Modeleski, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
August 22, 1990
Dance Palace
Pt. Reyes Station, California
Good Evening, Representative Boxer. My name is Mitch Modeleski.
I want to thank you for inviting us to this gathering, and for
your statement to us here tonight. I have listened with
undivided attention to what you have said. I have come here
tonight to ask that you now give me your undivided attention, and
that you answer honestly, yes or no, the simple question I will
put to you at the end of my brief statement. Representative
Boxer, I formally present to you substantive evidence that the
16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never
lawfully ratified. I present to you substantive evidence that a
massive fiscal fraud has been perpetrated by the federal
government upon the people of this land, a massive fiscal fraud
that began in the year 1913 and continues until today. And so, I
will put to you this simple question. Please honor my question
by answering YES or NO. Do you, or do you not, support the
abolition of federal taxes on personal income sources?
Page J - 3 of 56
The Federal Zone:
MEMO
TO: Friends, Neighbors, Colleagues
and all interested parties
FROM: Mitch Modeleski, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
DATE: January 1, 1991
SUBJECT: Enclosed Letter to Rep. Barbara Boxer
I am writing to share with you a copy of my recent long letter to
Congresswoman Barbara Boxer, my representative in the Congress of
the United States. If you will please find the time to read the
entire letter, I am confident you will agree that it documents
numerous reasons for coming to the following conclusions about
our federal government:
1. Wages are not taxable income, as the term is defined by
several key decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that
remain in force today.
2. The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to levy
"direct taxes" on private property, but only if those
taxes are apportioned across the 50 States.
3. The IRS now enforces the collection of "income taxes"
as direct taxes without apportionment, and cites the
16th Amendment for its authority to do so.
4. The 16th Amendment, the "income tax" amendment, was
never lawfully ratified by the required 36 States, but
was declared ratified by the U.S. Secretary of State.
5. The 16th Amendment could never have done away with the
apportionment rule for any direct taxes if it never
became a law in the first place.
Please feel free to duplicate this memo and the attached letter
to Representative Barbara Boxer, in any quantity you wish.
If you wish to write to me, please use the address found on the
first page of my letter to Rep. Boxer.
Thank you for your consideration.
Page J - 4 of 56
Appendix J
REGISTERED U.S. MAIL: c/o P. O. Box 6189
Return Receipt Requested San Rafael, California
Postal Zone 94903-0189
December 24, 1990
Rep. Barbara Boxer
House of Representatives
United States Congress
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Boxer:
With this letter, I formally petition you for redress of a major
legal grievance which I now have with the federal government of
the United States of America. At your community meeting in Pt.
Reyes Station last fall, you agreed publicly, in front of several
hundred witnesses, to examine the evidence against the 16th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since I have not heard from
your office on this matter, I am writing this letter to remind
you of your promise, and to remind you also of your oath of
office, by which you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution
of the United States of America, so help you God.
I do understand how the crisis in Iraq has succeeded in changing
your priorities and distracting you, your staff, and your
colleagues from other pressing national issues. At your recent
community meeting at the College of Marin, you chose to limit
public discussion to the reasons for and against a Congressional
declaration of war against Iraq. I must admit, to the extent
President Bush sought to preempt the front page with his
offensive military maneuvers, he has been almost entirely
successful in that endeavor. Barbara, you must understand that
the problems with the 16th Amendment, and they are many, will not
go away simply because the President, the Courts, or the Congress
wish them away.
A terribly confusing and fearful situation has arisen out of the
fact that the Supreme Court has, on several occasions, clearly
defined what constitutes "taxable income", whereas Federal
District and Appellate Courts have, for at least the last ten
years, chosen to ignore the relevant Supreme Court decisions and
to include wages in their definition of taxable income. As a
result of decisions by these lower courts, people have been
imprisoned and their homes and other assets have been forcibly
taken from them. Moreover, the Federal courts have consistently
refused to admit into evidence any of the 17,000 State-certified
documents which have been assembled against the 16th Amendment.
These same lower courts cite the case of Brushaber vs Union
Pacific Railroad, among others, in support of their conclusion
that the 16th Amendment has been declared constitutional by the
U.S. Supreme Court. To add to the confusion, federal tax experts
like Irwin Schiff and Otto Skinner cite this same Supreme Court
Page J - 5 of 56
The Federal Zone:
in support of their conclusion that the 16th Amendment did not
change any of the taxing powers already found in the U.S.
Constitution. For example, Schiff has written the following:
Another fallacy promoted by the government and the legal
establishment is that the Sixteenth Amendment amended the
Constitution. The Brushaber Court, however, clearly
explained that, in reality, the Sixteenth Amendment did not
alter the taxing clauses of the Constitution. ...
Here the Court pointed out that any belief that the 16th
Amendment gave the government a new, direct taxing power
(not limited by either apportionment or the rule of
uniformity) would "cause one provision of the Constitution
to destroy another", and "if acceded to ... would create
radical and destructive changes in our constitutional
system."
[from The Great Income Tax Hoax, Hamden, 1984, Freedom
Books, pages 182-183, emphasis added]
Author Otto Skinner relies, in part, on the Supreme Court
decision in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Company which reads:
... the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no
new power of taxation[,] but simply prohibited the previous
complete and plenary power of income taxation[,] possessed
by Congress from the beginning[,] from being taken out of
the category of indirect taxation[,] to which it inherently
belonged[,] and being placed in the category of direct
taxation subject to apportionment.
[quoted in The Best Kept Secret, San Pedro, Calif., 1986,
Otto U. Skinner, emphasis and commas added for clarify]
Contrast these cases with the following statement published in
the Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 62, March 29, 1974, in the
section entitled "Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue
Service, Organization and Functions", which reads as follows:
(2) Since 1862, the Internal Revenue Service has undergone
a period of steady growth as the means for financing
Government operations shifted from the levying of import
duties to internal taxation. Its expansion received
considerable impetus in 1913 with the ratification of the
Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution under which Congress
received constitutional authority to levy taxes on the
income of individuals and corporations. [emphasis added]
Page J - 6 of 56
Appendix J
I have several serious problems with this statement, which was
published in the Federal Register by Donald C. Alexander,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue at that time. First of all, the
IRS now defines "income" to include wages. Using the above
quote, the IRS cites the 16th Amendment for its authority to levy
taxes on wages. Nevertheless, this definition of income flatly
contradicts the definition of income found in several key Supreme
Court decisions. Specifically, the Brushaber court wrote the
following in their decision to uphold the constitutionality of
the 16th Amendment:
Moreover in addition the conclusions reached in the Pollock
Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes
generically and necessarily came within the class of direct
taxes on property, but on the contrary, recognized the fact
that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled
to be enforced as such ....
[Brushaber vs Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1, emphasis
added]
Can there be any doubt that taxes on wages are "direct taxes on
property"? District and Appellate courts have repeatedly sided
with the IRS by ruling that "income" is anything that "comes in".
In doing so, these same courts flatly contradict earlier Supreme
Court decisions on the very same subject. Take the case of
Southern Pacific Company vs John Z. Lowe, Jr., 247 U.S. 330,
which decided as follows:
We must reject in this case ... the broad contention
submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts --
everything that comes in -- are income within the proper
definition of "gross income" ....
Another Supreme Court decision which defined what constitutes
"taxable income" is Emanuel J. Doyle vs Mitchell Brothers
Company, 247 U.S. 179. In defining "income", this decision
stated that:
... it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct
from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or
as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain
or increase arising from corporate activities.
Another Supreme Court case, Stratton's Independence vs Howbert,
231 U.S. 406, issued yet another official definition of "income"
as follows:
Page J - 7 of 56
The Federal Zone:
This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income
tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon
property, and was invalid because not apportioned according
to population as prescribed by the Constitution ... for
"income" may be defined as the gain derived from capital,
from labor, or from both combined ....
Without question, the most significant Supreme Court case to
define "income" was Mark Eisner vs Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S.
189, commonly known as Eisner vs Macomber. In the following long
passage, pay particular attention to the explicit intent of the
Supreme Court in wording its decision the way it did:
In order, therefore, that the clauses cited above from
Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and
effect ... it becomes essential to distinguish between what
is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and
to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth
and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by
any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it
cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which
alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose
limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
... Here we have the essential matter -- not a gain
accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in
the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of
exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed
from the capital however invested or employed, and coming
in, being "derived," that is received or drawn by the
recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and
disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing
else answers the description.
... A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very
clear language, requires also that this [16th] Amendment
shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal
or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of
the Constitution that require an apportionment according to
population for direct taxes upon property real and personal.
This limitation still has an appropriate and important
function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or
disregarded by the courts. [emphasis added]
In another Supreme Court case, Merchant's Loan & Trust Company vs
Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, note in particular that the definition
of "income" was considered to be "definitely settled" as follows:
Page J - 8 of 56
Appendix J
... with the addition that it should include "profit gained
through a sale or conversion of capital assets," there would
seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the
same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that
was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that
what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by
decisions of this court.
In determining the definition of the word "income" thus
arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter
into the refinements of lexicographers or economists and has
approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be
the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have
been in the minds of the people when they adopted the
Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. ...
Notwithstanding the full argument heard in this case and in
the series of cases now under consideration, we continue
entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund
here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the
stock in 1917, less the capital investment as determined by
the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was
a "gain or profit" "produced by" or "derived from" that
investment, and that it "proceeded," and was "severed" or
rendered severable, from, by the sale for cash, and thereby
became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly
declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the
constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress.
Accordingly, after reviewing all the relevant federal court
decisions for the past 80 years, constitutional tax expert and
author Jeffrey A. Dickstein has written the following to
summarize his findings:
Income has been defined by the United States Supreme Court
to be a profit or gain derived from various sources, such as
labor and capital. A tax directly on the source is a direct
tax, and must still be apportioned. A tax on the income
derived from the source need not be apportioned. Labor, the
labor contract, and the right to sell labor have all been
held by the Supreme Court to constitute property. The
procedure to determine if there is a gain derived from the
sale of property has been set forth by Congress. Gain is
derived only if one receives over and above the fair market
value of the cost of the property. These basic principles
are simple to state and simple to apply. They also lead to
one inescapable conclusion:
WAGES DO NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME.
Page J - 9 of 56
The Federal Zone:
... You must be cautioned that not filing a return with the
Internal Revenue Service could result in the imposition of
civil penalties and/or the recommendation for criminal
prosecution. This illegal conduct on the part of our
Executive Department of government is yet but another in a
long line of abuses, similar to those which resulted in the
Declaration of Independence. It is nonetheless my
contention that provisions contained in the United States
Constitution, together with decisions of the United States
Supreme Court, fully support the legal conclusion that wages
do not constitute income as shown in previous chapters, and
reinforce the position that the Internal Revenue Service is
violating the law in its administration of the personal
federal income tax, with the full consent of the federal
judiciary.
[from Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, Missoula, Custom
Prints, 1990, pages 277- 280, emphasis added]
Return now to the statement by IRS Commissioner Donald C.
Alexander in the Federal Register in 1974. Under the 16th
Amendment, "Congress received constitutional authority to levy
taxes on the income of individuals and corporations." Even if
the 16th Amendment had been properly ratified by three-fourths of
the 48 States in 1913, the Supreme Court has repeatedly defined
"taxable income" to be a "gain or profit", not wages or fair
compensation for labor. The Supreme Court has never included
wages in its several definitions of "taxable income" nor in its
interpretations of the 16th Amendment. If that had ever been the
intent of the 16th Amendment, or of the Framers of the original
Constitution, don't you think the Supreme Court would have said
so by now? The Supreme Court has certainly had plenty of
opportunities to do so, and they have not done so. Wages for
labor were not invented yesterday.
Consider now the situation that arises from a 16th Amendment that
was never properly ratified. I am not going to bother here with
spelling errors, or with differences in the capitalization of the
word "State", that occurred in various resolutions presented to
the state legislatures. I am referring, instead, to important,
official acts which directly affect the legality of the 16th
Amendment, including the vetoes of governors and a State court
decision which struck down the Resolution. Note the situation
that obtained in Illinois, as quoted from The Law that Never Was,
by Bill Benson and M. J. 'Red' Beckman:
In Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill. 160, a certificate of the
Secretary of State purporting to give full and true copies
of the journals of the senate and house relating to the
passage of the bill was in evidence and did not show that
the bill was read three times on three different days nor
passed on a vote of the ayes and noes, as required by the
Page J - 10 of 56
Appendix J
constitution, and the court said that the bill never became
a law and was as completely a nullity as if it had been the
act or declaration of an unauthorized assemblage of
individuals.
In People v. Knopf, 198 Ill. 340, the court again stated the
rule that if the facts essential to the passage of a law are
not set forth in the journal the conclusion is that they did
not transpire, and if the journal fails to show that an act
was passed in the mode prescribed by the constitution the
act must fail. [page 52]
Nevertheless, U.S. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared
Illinois to be one of the States which ratified the 16th
Amendment.
In Arkansas, Governor George W. Donaghey vetoed Senate Joint
Resolution No. 7, the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Arkansas
Legislature failed to override his veto. According to the
provisions of Article VI, Section 16 of the Arkansas State
Constitution:
Every order or resolution in which the concurrence of both
houses of the General Assembly may be necessary, except on
questions of adjournment, shall be presented to the
Governor, and before it shall take effect, be approved by
him; or being disapproved, shall be repassed by both
houses, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in
the case of a bill.
When confronted with this serious matter, namely, a governor's
veto and the failure of a state legislature to override his veto,
the Solicitor of the Department of State wrote the following:
Ratification by Arkansas. Power of the governor to veto.
It will be observed from the above record that the Governor
of the State of Arkansas vetoed the resolution passed by the
legislature of that State. It is submitted, however, that
this does not in any way invalidate the action of the
legislature or nullify the effect on the resolution, as it
is believed that the approval of the Governor is not
necessary and that he has not the power to veto in such
cases.
[quoted in The Law that Never Was, page 22]
"It is believed that the approval of the Governor is not
necessary and that he has not the power to veto in such cases."
Note, in particular, who is making this statement. It is not a
Page J - 11 of 56
The Federal Zone:
judge; it is not a law maker; and it is not a law. The person
is a staff lawyer in the Department of State, an organization
with no authority whatsoever to make laws or to render official
interpretations of law. Making federal law is a power reserved
for the Congress of the United States. Rendering final, official
interpretations of law is a power reserved for the Supreme Court
of the United States. Here, we have the case of a ministerial
agent rendering a highly important legal opinion, and a wrong one
at that, in a matter affecting the Constitution of the United
States, the supreme law of the land. And his opinion was allowed
to stand. This is an abomination!
I do not pretend to have any power to foresee the future,
particularly in matters affecting the politics of legal
interpretation. Nevertheless, with that said, the IRS and the
federal government in general face a number of difficult
political and legal problems, should the ratification of the 16th
Amendment ever be overturned. Quite obviously, the IRS will no
longer be able to cite this Amendment as the means "under which
Congress received constitutional authority to levy taxes on the
income of individuals and corporations." It will need to find,
or create, some other authority to levy taxes on the "income" of
individuals and corporations. But this is a lot easier said,
than done.
With or without a 16th Amendment, the IRS must deal with a long
series of Supreme Court decisions which consistently define
"taxable income" to be something quite other than wages. More to
the point, the Supreme Court has also ruled that "Congress cannot
by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it
cannot by legislation alter the Constitution." This means that
neither the IRS nor Congress have the authority to define
"income" any old way they want. This applies to you too, Barbara
Boxer, as an elected member of the House of Representatives and
as a private citizen. Under the Constitution of the United
States, the IRS has never been empowered to make any laws in this
area. Those seeking to re-define "income" to include wages will
need to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn all previous
decisions to the contrary, including decisions which investigated
in depth the relevant issues and history of direct taxes,
indirect taxes, and defining income.
Assuming for the moment that it was properly ratified, there
remains a serious debate, both inside and outside the federal
judiciary, as to whether the 16th Amendment authorized an
unapportioned direct tax on "income", or whether it authorized an
excise entitled to be enforced as an indirect tax. The Pollock
Case supports the idea that federal income taxes are direct
taxes. The Brushaber Case supports the idea that federal income
taxes are indirect taxes. Contrary to Supreme Court rulings, the
IRS defines income to include wages, and cites the 16th Amendment
as its authority for imposing direct taxes on wages without
apportionment. Accordingly, some legal scholars conclude that
the 16th Amendment did amend the Constitution, while others
Page J - 12 of 56
Appendix J
conclude that it did not. A properly pleaded Supreme Court
decision would hopefully settle the several issues in this
particular debate; it would serve to determine which rule
applies to "federal income taxes" -- apportionment for direct
taxes, uniformity for indirect taxes, or neither -- and to
provide a credible justification for this determination.
To illustrate the range of disagreement on such a fundamental
constitutional issue, consider the conclusion of legal scholar
Vern Holland:
It results, therefore: ...
4. That the Sixteenth Amendment did not amend the
Constitution. The United States Supreme Court by unanimous
decisions determined that the amendment did not grant any
new powers of taxation; that a direct tax cannot be
relieved from the constitutional mandate of apportionment;
and the only effect of the amendment was to overturn the
theory advanced in the Pollock case which held that a tax on
income, was in legal effect, a tax on the sources of the
income.
[The Law that Always Was, Tulsa, 1987, F.E.A. Books, p. 220]
Now consider an opposing view. After much research and much
litigation, author and attorney Jeffrey A. Dickstein offers the
following clarification:
A tax imposed on all of a person's annual gross receipts is
a direct tax on personal property that must be apportioned.
A tax imposed on the "income" derived from those gross
receipts is also a direct tax on property, but as a result
of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress no longer has to enact
legislation calling for the apportionment of a tax on that
income. [ibid., pages 60-61, emphasis added]
We must be careful not to put the cart before the horse, however.
Like it or not, this debate cannot proceed any further without
squarely facing 17,000 State-certified documents impugning the
entire ratification process of the 16th Amendment. This means
that citizens and lawmakers together must confront our current
situation "as if the bill never became a law and was as
completely a nullity as if it had been the act or declaration of
an unauthorized assemblage of individuals." Chicanery is not
synonymous with good law. Specifically, even if this were its
specific intent, the 16th Amendment could never have done away
with the apportionment requirement on any direct taxes if it
never became a law in the first place. Without question, the IRS
is now enforcing the collection of income taxes as direct taxes
without apportionment, and cites the 16th Amendment as its
authority to do so.
Page J - 13 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Without the 16th Amendment, Congress does retain its original
authority to levy two great categories of taxes -- direct taxes
and indirect taxes -- an authority it always had. Without the
16th Amendment, direct taxes are constitutional, and therefore
legal, if and only if they are apportioned across the several
States. Taxes on wages, or on all of a person's gross receipts,
are direct taxes on personal property which must be apportioned,
and are illegal and unconstitutional if they are not. Moreover,
failing the 16th Amendment and using Dickstein's logic as a
guide, taxes on the "income" derived from those gross receipts
are also direct taxes on property, and must also be apportioned.
Without the 16th Amendment, indirect taxes are constitutional,
and therefore legal, if and only if they are uniform across the
several States. To the extent that the IRS, and any other
branches of the federal government, should violate these rules,
they are violating the supreme law of the land and thus violating
individual rights which that supreme law was explicitly
established to guarantee.
One way out of this dilemma for the federal government is to
begin immediately to apportion taxes levied on wages and other
gross receipts of individuals, and to demonstrate to the Supreme
Court that the totals obtained from the various States are
proportional to their respective populations. Irwin Schiff
describes in simple language how this could be done. Another way
out of this dilemma is to begin immediately to impose income
taxes as "excise taxes" on corporate profits, and to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that the resulting tax
rates are uniform across the States. For example, it is entirely
within the power of Congress to impose an "income tax" on the
profits of the Federal Reserve Corporation, since that
corporation is not an agency of the federal government, and is
currently exempted from income taxes by an act of Congress.
By themselves, neither of these are very likely to happen, or be
very easy to enforce if they do happen, should the 16th Amendment
be overturned, and should its overturning receive the widespread
publicity it is likely to receive. If the 16th Amendment is
overturned, the people will, for better or for worse, rejoice
that "income taxes" have been declared unconstitutional and, as
currently administered by the IRS, they would be right.
To resolve any lingering doubts, the Supreme Court should be
presented with an opportunity to determine squarely the
constitutionality of a general tax on gross receipts without
apportionment. According to scholar Vern Holland, a properly
pleaded case has never been brought before the high Court.
Holland asserts that the bulk of historical evidence allows for
only one conclusion:
The Court cannot ignore the weight of evidence that proves
that a General Tax on Income levied upon one of the Citizens
of the several States, has always been a direct tax and must
be apportioned. [ibid., page 220]
Page J - 14 of 56
Appendix J
The best alternatives available to the federal government are to
abandon direct taxes on wages entirely, to shift instead to a
greater reliance on excise taxes, and to reverse its policy of
debt financing. The machinery for administering excise taxes is
already in place for taxing the sale of commodities like
gasoline. Abolishing withholding taxes will eliminate a huge,
involuntary burden on the vast working classes of America, and
restore incentive to a working place badly in need of all the
motivation it can muster. It will also put the lie to the IRS
claim that federal "income" taxes are voluntary, all the while
employers are forced to withhold the wages of employees who are
told repeatedly they have no choice in the matter.
Moreover, there is much evidence to suggest that lowering taxes
would have the effect of stimulating the economy in a
disproportionate, economically "elastic" way. For example, see
"Higher Taxes Aren't the Answer -- History Proves it," by
Stephen Moore, Reason Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, October 1990.
By abolishing "wage taxes" and relying instead on excise taxes
levied upon commercial transactions, the government raises more
money as the economy improves, and raises less money as the
economy declines, giving government a strong incentive to "tune"
its excise taxes accordingly. I am prepared to share with you
some excellent proposals for financing the federal government
entirely thru a national sales tax.
This is a far cry from our present situation, in which the
federal government is fast approaching total bankruptcy, and
cannot balance its budget without simultaneously raising taxes
further still and reducing spending even more so. Because it
employs so many people at present, and buys so many goods and
services, the federal government is central to the American
economy. Thru the vehicle of debt financing, the federal
government now grows at the expense of the economy, plunging
future generations into ever higher debt, and ever larger
interest payments. At the rate we are going, it is only a matter
of months before the interest payments alone on the national debt
will exceed the entire annual tax revenues to the U.S. Treasury.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to hide a trillion dollar
savings and loan scandal. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation (FSLIC) is basically broke. The Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) now has only $4 billion to cover
some $2 trillion in bank deposits. Thus, the federal insurance
fund covers only one-fifth of one percent of total deposits (i.e.
4 / 2000). The FDIC will fail when only a small number of banks
collapse. Call these the "first wave". Lacking any federal
insurance at that point, a second wave of bank failures will
cause millions of Americans to lose their bank deposits forever,
and possibly also lose the millions of home mortgages on which
those deposits are leveraged. By itself, isn't this enough to
convince you how serious is our national fiscal crisis?
Page J - 15 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Representative Barbara Boxer, I implore you to exercise your
powers as an elected official in the Congress of the United
States, to examine carefully the mountain of evidence against the
16th Amendment, to investigate the many consequences of declaring
it null and void, and to study the many alternative ways of
financing the federal government without direct taxes on the
gross receipts of individuals. You have a number of legal
options available to you, including the power to subpoena
documents and witnesses before Congressional committees. You
have it within your power to authorize such committees to
investigate charges of fraud and other illegal tampering with the
procedures for amending the Constitution of the United States,
the supreme law of our land. You have it within your power to
examine all the actions of federal government officials involved
in declaring the 16th Amendment "ratified" in the year 1913,
because there is no statute of limitations on fraud. And you
have it within your power to include the American public in a
process of open hearings, public education and free discussion on
this subject, as you did so wonderfully at the College of Marin
to discuss a declaration of war.
Representative Barbara Boxer, I stand ready, willing, and able to
help you in any way I can to investigate further the charge of
felony fraud which I now make to you:
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER LAWFULLY RATIFIED.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Mitch Modeleski, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
enclosures: computer analysis of evidence
against the 16th Amendment
Page J - 16 of 56
Appendix J
Failures to Ratify the 16th Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States:
A Status Summary by State
See Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error
State Notes #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9
------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Alabama YES YES
Arizona YES YES YES
Arkansas YES YES YES YES
California YES YES YES
Colorado YES YES
Connecticut (10) YES
Delaware YES YES
Florida (11) YES
Georgia YES YES YES YES YES
Idaho YES YES YES YES
Illinois YES YES YES
Indiana YES YES YES
Iowa YES YES YES
Kansas YES YES YES YES YES
Kentucky YES YES YES YES YES
Louisiana YES YES YES
Maine YES YES YES YES
Maryland YES YES YES YES
Massachusetts YES YES YES
Michigan YES YES
Minnesota YES YES YES
Mississippi YES YES YES
Missouri YES YES YES
Montana YES YES YES
Nebraska YES YES YES
Nevada YES YES YES
New Hampshire YES YES
New Jersey YES YES YES
New Mexico YES
New York YES YES YES YES YES
North Carolina YES YES YES
North Dakota YES YES YES
Ohio YES YES YES YES
Oklahoma YES YES YES
Oregon YES YES YES
Pennsylvania (12) YES
Rhode Island (13) YES
South Carolina YES YES YES
South Dakota YES YES YES
Tennessee YES YES YES YES
Texas YES YES YES
Utah (14) YES
Vermont YES YES YES YES
Virginia (15) YES
Washington YES YES YES
West Virginia YES YES YES YES
Wisconsin YES YES
Wyoming YES YES YES
Page J - 17 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Description of Errors:
1. Failure to concur in U. S. Senate Joint Resolution No. 40 in
that various changes were made to the text of the official
Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress.
2. Failure to follow the guidelines for the return of a
certified copy of the ratification action, as contained in
Congressional Concurrent Resolution No. 6, and as required
by Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of 1878.
3. Governor vetoed the resolution and the State Legislature
failed to override the veto.
4. Resolution was not submitted to the Governor for approval.
5. State Senate failed to pass the resolution by a required 2/3
majority.
6. State Assembly or House failed to pass the resolution by a
required 2/3 majority.
7. State Senate failed to pass the resolution.
8. State Assembly or House failed to pass the resolution.
9. Other State constitutional violations not mentioned above.
(Source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of the 16th
Amendment and Personal Income Tax, by Bill Benson and M. J. 'Red'
Beckman, published by Constitutional Research Assoc., Box 550,
South Holland, IL 60473, April 1985)
Notes:
(10) The Senate rejected the minority report of the committee on
judiciary and federal relations recommending ratification of
this amendment on June 23, 1911, by a vote of 6 to 19.
(Connecticut Senate Journal, 1911, pp. 1346-1348)
(11) Florida House passed H.J. Res. 192, ratifying this amendment
on May 21, 1913, by a vote of 59 to 0. (Florida House
Journal, 1913, p. 1686.) The Senate committee on
constitution recommended that the resolution do not pass.
May 27, 1913. (Florida Senate Journal, 1913, p. 1745.)
(12) The House passed a joint resolution ratifying the sixteenth
amendment on May 10, 1911, by a vote of 139 to 4.
(Pennsylvania House Journal, 1911, pp. 2690-2691.) The
Senate referred the joint resolution to the committee on
judiciary special, where it lay. (Pennsylvania Senate
Journal, 1911, p. 2162.)
Page J - 18 of 56
Appendix J
(13) Senate resolution refusing to ratify this amendment was
concurred in by House April 29, 1910. (Rhode Island House
Journal, April 29, 1910.)
(14) The House rejected this amendment on March 9, 1911, by a
vote of 31 to 10. (Utah House Journal, 1911, pp. 606-607.)
The Senate passed the resolution ratifying the amendment by
a vote of 12 to 2 on February 17, 1911. (Utah Senate
Journal, 1911, p. 256.)
(15) The Senate ratified this amendment by a vote of 19 to 5 on
March 9, 1910. (Virginia Senate Journal, 1910, pp. 651-
652.) The House Journal, 1910, does not show that this
resolution ratifying the amendment ever came to a vote.
(Notes 10-15 from U.S. Senate Document No. 240, 71st Congress,
"Ratification of the Constitution and Amendments by the States")
Page J - 19 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Defense Strategy 1:
States Made Changes to the Text of the Resolution
state error1
--------------- ------
1 Alabama YES
2 Arizona YES
3 Arkansas YES
4 California YES
5 Colorado YES
6 Delaware YES
7 Georgia YES
8 Idaho YES
9 Illinois YES
10 Indiana YES
11 Iowa YES
12 Kansas YES
13 Kentucky YES [number needed to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Louisiana YES
15 Maine YES
16 Maryland YES
17 Massachusetts YES
18 Michigan YES
19 Minnesota YES
20 Mississippi YES
21 Missouri YES
22 Montana YES
23 Nebraska YES
24 Nevada YES
25 New Hampshire YES
26 New Jersey YES
27 New York YES
28 North Carolina YES
29 North Dakota YES
30 Ohio YES
31 Oklahoma YES
32 Oregon YES
33 South Carolina YES
34 South Dakota YES
35 Tennessee YES
36 Texas YES
37 Vermont YES
38 Washington YES
39 West Virginia YES
40 Wisconsin YES
41 Wyoming YES [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 Connecticut
43 Florida
44 New Mexico
45 Pennsylvania
46 Rhode Island
47 Utah
48 Virginia
Page J - 20 of 56
Appendix J
Defense Strategy 2:
Various Violations of State Constitutions
state error9
--------------- ------
1 Arizona YES
2 Arkansas YES
3 California YES
4 Colorado YES
5 Georgia YES
6 Idaho YES
7 Illinois YES
8 Indiana YES
9 Iowa YES
10 Kansas YES
11 Kentucky YES
12 Louisiana YES
13 Maine YES [number needed to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Maryland YES
15 Massachusetts YES
16 Michigan YES
17 Minnesota YES
18 Mississippi YES
19 Missouri YES
20 Montana YES
21 Nebraska YES
22 Nevada YES
23 New Mexico YES
24 New York YES
25 North Carolina YES
26 North Dakota YES
27 Ohio YES
28 Oklahoma YES
29 Oregon YES
30 South Carolina YES
31 Tennessee YES
32 Texas YES
33 Vermont YES
34 Washington YES
35 West Virginia YES
36 Wyoming YES [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
37 Alabama
38 Connecticut
39 Delaware
40 Florida
41 New Hampshire
42 New Jersey
43 Pennsylvania
44 Rhode Island
45 South Dakota
46 Utah
47 Virginia
48 Wisconsin
Page J - 21 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Defense Strategy 3:
States Failed to Follow Guidelines for Certified Copy
state error2
--------------- ------
1 Alabama YES
2 Arizona YES
3 Arkansas YES
4 California YES
5 Delaware YES
6 Georgia YES
7 Idaho YES
8 Illinois YES
9 Indiana YES
10 Iowa YES
11 Kansas YES
12 Kentucky YES
13 Louisiana YES [number needed to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Maine YES
15 Maryland YES
16 Massachusetts YES
17 Minnesota YES
18 Mississippi YES
19 Montana YES
20 Nebraska YES
21 Nevada YES
22 New Hampshire YES
23 New Jersey YES
24 New York YES
25 North Carolina YES
26 North Dakota YES
27 Ohio YES
28 Oklahoma YES
29 Oregon YES
30 South Carolina YES
31 South Dakota YES
32 Tennessee YES
33 Texas YES
34 Vermont YES
35 West Virginia YES
36 Wisconsin YES
37 Wyoming YES [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
38 Colorado
39 Connecticut
40 Florida
41 Michigan
42 Missouri
43 New Mexico
44 Pennsylvania
45 Rhode Island
46 Utah
47 Virginia
48 Washington
Page J - 22 of 56
Appendix J
Defense Strategy 4:
Confirmed Noes + Governor Vetoes + Errors 4 - 8
state error10 error3 error4 error5 error6 error7 error8
--------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1 Virginia (15) YES
2 Utah (14) YES
3 Rhode Island (13) YES
4 Pennsylvania (12) YES
5 Florida (11) YES
6 Connecticut (10) YES
7 Kentucky YES YES
8 Arkansas YES
9 New York YES YES
10 Idaho YES
11 Maryland YES
12 Missouri YES
13 Ohio YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 South Dakota YES
15 Washington YES
16 West Virginia YES
17 Kansas YES YES
18 Georgia YES YES
19 New Jersey YES
20 Vermont YES
21 Maine YES
22 Tennessee YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Alabama
24 Arizona
25 California
26 Colorado
27 Delaware
28 Illinois
29 Indiana
30 Iowa
31 Louisiana
32 Massachusetts
33 Michigan
34 Minnesota
35 Mississippi
36 Montana
37 Nebraska
38 Nevada
39 New Hampshire
40 New Mexico
41 North Carolina
42 North Dakota
43 Oklahoma
44 Oregon
45 South Carolina
46 Texas
47 Wisconsin
48 Wyoming
Page J - 23 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Defense Strategy 5:
Failed House/Senate + Failed 2/3 + Vetoes and not Submitted to Governor
state error7 error8 error5 error6 error3 error4
--------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1 Georgia YES YES
2 Kentucky YES YES
3 Connecticut YES
4 Florida YES
5 Maine YES
6 Pennsylvania YES
7 Rhode Island YES
8 Tennessee YES
9 Utah YES
10 Virginia YES
11 Kansas YES YES
12 New Jersey YES
13 Vermont YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 New York YES YES
15 Arkansas YES
16 Idaho YES
17 Maryland YES
18 Missouri YES
19 Ohio YES
20 South Dakota YES
21 Washington YES
22 West Virginia YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Alabama
24 Arizona
25 California
26 Colorado
27 Delaware
28 Illinois
29 Indiana
30 Iowa
31 Louisiana
32 Massachusetts
33 Michigan
34 Minnesota
35 Mississippi
36 Montana
37 Nebraska
38 Nevada
39 New Hampshire
40 New Mexico
41 North Carolina
42 North Dakota
43 Oklahoma
44 Oregon
45 South Carolina
46 Texas
47 Wisconsin
48 Wyoming
Page J - 24 of 56
Appendix J
Defense Strategy 6:
Confirmed Noes + Governor Vetoes + Not Submitted to Governor
state error10 error3 error4 error5 error6 error7 error8
--------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1 Virginia (15) YES
2 Utah (14) YES
3 Rhode Island (13) YES
4 Pennsylvania (12) YES
5 Florida (11) YES
6 Connecticut (10) YES
7 Kentucky YES YES
8 Arkansas YES
9 New York YES YES
10 Idaho YES
11 Maryland YES
12 Missouri YES
13 Ohio YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 South Dakota YES
15 Washington YES
16 West Virginia YES
17 Kansas YES YES
18 Georgia YES YES
19 New Jersey YES
20 Vermont YES
21 Maine YES
22 Tennessee YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Alabama
24 Arizona
25 California
26 Colorado
27 Delaware
28 Illinois
29 Indiana
30 Iowa
31 Louisiana
32 Massachusetts
33 Michigan
34 Minnesota
35 Mississippi
36 Montana
37 Nebraska
38 Nevada
39 New Hampshire
40 New Mexico
41 North Carolina
42 North Dakota
43 Oklahoma
44 Oregon
45 South Carolina
46 Texas
47 Wisconsin
48 Wyoming
Page J - 25 of 56
The Federal Zone:
c/o P. O. Box 6189
San Rafael, California
Postal Zone 94903-0189
March 11, 1991
Foreman
Marin County Grand Jury
Hall of Justice
Civic Center
San Rafael, California
Postal Zone 94903
Dear Foreman:
Enclosed with this letter please find our completed Request for
Investigation by the Marin County Grand Jury.
As stated in the summary section of our completed form, we hereby
request the Marin County Grand Jury to do the following:
(1) to investigate possible obstruction of justice and
misprision of felony by Representative Barbara Boxer for her
failure, against a spoken promise before hundreds of
witnesses at Pt. Reyes Station on August 22, 1990, to
examine the material evidence of felony fraud when U.S.
Secretary of State Philander C. Knox declared the 16th
Amendment ratified,
(2) to subpoena or otherwise require Representative Boxer to
explain, under oath, why she and her staff have failed to
answer our formal, written petition for redress of this
major legal grievance with agents of the federal government,
(3) to review the material evidence against the so-called 16th
Amendment which we have assembled and are prepared to submit
in expert testimony, under oath, to the Marin County Grand
Jury.
Attached please find a signed copy of the formal, written
petition which I have already sent to Rep. Boxer via registered
United States mail, return receipt requested and received. This
petition is dated December 24, 1990. A second copy of this
petition was sent at the same time via standard, first class mail
to her office in Washington, D.C, and a third copy was also sent
via first class mail to her office in San Rafael, California.
This petition seeks to state the problem as succinctly as
possible, to review the relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme
Court, to analyze the legal and economic implications of
nullifying the so-called 16th Amendment, and to present a summary
of numerous State-certified documents which prove that felony
fraud was committed when this Amendment was "declared" ratified
in the year 1913 by then Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox.
Page J - 26 of 56
Appendix J
As the author of this petition and as an interested citizen who
is, above all, dedicated to preserving our constitutional
republic and the rule of law which the constitution was
explicitly established to guarantee, it is my earnest hope that
you will review these materials with the utmost care and
attention to detail which they deserve.
The story you are about to read would fill volumes of fascinating
historical fiction, were it not all true in every last detail.
Please consider me to be ready, willing, and able to assist you,
in any way I can, to review every relevant detail with honesty,
integrity, and an unflagging passion for the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in this critical matter which
now affects the entire nation in so many ways.
Thank you very much for your consideration. I will look forward
to your prompt response to this Request.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Mitch Modeleski, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
Attachments:
Request for Grand Jury Investigation
Memo dated 1/1/91 summarizing petition
Formal petition dated 12/24/90
Excerpts from U.S. criminal codes
Text of statement read aloud to Rep. Boxer, 8/22/90
How It All Began: a quote from Eustace Mullins
Proof of registered mail sent and received
Page J - 27 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Misprision of Felony, 18 U.S.C. 4 states:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a
felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals
and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some
judge or other person in civil or military authority under
the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 1001 states:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false,
fictitious or fraudulent statement or representations, or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same
to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or
entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 1002 states:
Whoever, knowingly and with intent to defraud the United
States, or any agency thereof, possesses any false, altered,
forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose
of enabling another to obtain from the United States, or
from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money,
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more
than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 1017 states:
Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the
seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or
upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or
paper or with knowledge of its fraudulent character, with
wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buys, procures, sells,
or transfers to another any such certificate, instrument,
commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said
seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be
fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 1018 states:
Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized
by any law of the United States to make or give a
certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers
as true such a certificate or writing, containing any
statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the
punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by
law, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both.
Page J - 28 of 56
Appendix J
18 U.S.C. 3 states:
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States
has been committed, receives, comforts or assists the
offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension,
trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by an Act of
Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned
not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or
fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for
the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the
principal is punishable by death, the accessory shall be
imprisoned not more than ten years.
Page J - 29 of 56
The Federal Zone:
c/o P. O. Box 6189
San Rafael, California
Postal Zone 94903-0189
April 15, 1991
Rep. Barbara Boxer
House of Representatives
United States Congress
Washington, D.C.
Postal Zone 20515
Dear Rep. Boxer:
Thank you very much for your brief letter to me, dated March 27,
1991. I appreciate your decision to refer my petition dated
December 24, 1990, to the House Ways and Means Committee, for
comments from that committee's counsel.
From prior contacts with other American citizens who have filed
similar petitions with their representatives in the Congress, I
know that a stock answer is to send to constituents a copy of the
so-called Ripy Report, "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment,"
by Thomas B. Ripy, Congressional Research Service, May 20, 1985
(see enclosed).
Before you or Committee counsel make the same mistake with me,
please understand that I already possess a copy of the Ripy
Report and find it entirely unsatisfactory as to matters of fact.
Specifically, the Ripy Report does not attempt to challenge any
of the material facts presented by authors Benson and Beckman in
the book The Law That Never Was.
You will recall that my petition to you of December 24, 1990
included a computer-based summary of the evidence against the
16th Amendment. Once again, permit me to summarize only some of
these facts, as follows:
* Eleven States amended the proposed resolution.
* The Senate of the State of Kentucky rejected the
proposed amendment by a vote of 9 for and 22 against
ratification.
* Five States failed to ratify the amendment by the
required two-thirds majority in one of the chambers of
their legislatures (Georgia, Kansas, New York, New
Jersey, and Vermont).
* Minnesota, California and Ohio never sent official
notification of the action taken by their respective
legislatures.
Page J - 30 of 56
Appendix J
* Another six States did not record whatever action was
taken by their respective legislatures in the Journals
of their General Assemblies.
* Ten States never voted on the proposed amendment.
* Nine States deleted the preamble to the joint
resolution.
* Twenty-six States changed the punctuation of the
preamble.
* Twenty-five States changed the punctuation of the
resolution.
* Twenty-four States changed the capitalization of
certain words.
* Nineteen States made grammatical changes.
* An Illinois State Court ruled that "it never became a
law and was as much a nullity as if it had been the act
or declaration of an unauthorized assemblage of
individuals." (Ryan vs Lynch, 68 Ill. 160)
* The Governor of the State of Arkansas vetoed the
resolution, the Arkansas Legislature never overrode his
veto, and the Arkansas Constitution did not exempt
Constitutional amendments from a governor's signature.
* Oklahoma changed the proposal so as to require the
laying of an income tax pursuant to a census or
enumeration, the precise requirement the proposed
amendment sought to alleviate.
On February 15, 1913, the Solicitor of the State Department
advised Secretary of State Philander C. Knox that:
"... under provisions of the Constitution a legislature is
not authorized to alter IN ANY WAY the amendment proposed by
Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely
in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed
amendment."
("Ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States," Office of the Solicitor, emphasis added)
Accordingly, I find it necessary to agree entirely with the
following statement by attorney and litigator Andrew B. Spiegel,
from his publication which I have enclosed with this letter:
Page J - 31 of 56
The Federal Zone:
"The Ripy Report does not attempt to challenge any of the
facts presented by William J. Benson .... Thus, for the
purposes of this argument, those facts must be taken as
conceded by the government. It is those facts which lead to
the inescapable conclusion that the so-called income tax
amendment is null and void."
[from "Ratification of the Income Tax Amendment: Has the
Federal Government Defrauded the American People? A Response
to the Ripy Report," Constitutional Research Associates,
September 15, 1986, p. 2, emphasis added]
Moreover, in your letter of March 27, 1991, referring to counsel
for the Ways and Means Committee, you state, "His views on the
matter are crucial." With all due respect, I must also disagree
with this statement. Although I would have to agree that his
views may be important, as far as written records are concerned,
they are certainly not crucial, not to me, not as I use that
term. The Constitution, laws that are consistent with the
Constitution, fully informed jury verdicts, and official rulings
of the U.S. Supreme Court are crucial to me, not the views of
hired lawyers who happen to enjoy staff positions on this or that
Congressional committee. I do expect you to appreciate the
difference between these two sources of "view".
I am sending a copy of this letter to Rep. Dan Rostenkowski with
the hope that it will prevent any fruitless attempt by his staff
to satisfy me with a copy of the Ripy Report, a report which
clearly fails to deal with crucial matters of fact.
Thank you again for your consideration in this matter which has,
by now, affected many millions of Americans since the year 1913,
the year in which the so-called 16th Amendment was "declared"
ratified, and the year in which the Federal Reserve Act was first
enacted into law.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Mitch Modeleski, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
enclosure: "... Response to the Ripy Report,"
by Andrew B. Spiegel
copies: Rep. Dan Rostenkowski
interested citizens
Page J - 32 of 56
Appendix J
REGISTERED U.S. MAIL: c/o P. O. Box 6189
Return Receipt Requested San Rafael, California
Postal Zone 94903-0189
May 3, 1991
Rep. Barbara Boxer
House of Representatives
United States Congress
Washington, D.C.
Postal Zone 20515
Dear Rep. Boxer:
I am entirely unsatisfied with your letter dated April 12, 1991.
At various times during the past year, I have requested you in
person, and in writing, to examine the material evidence against
the 16th Amendment. At your community meeting in Pt. Reyes on
August 22, 1990, in front of several hundred witnesses, you
agreed to do so, and you have not done so. At no time between
then and now, have you demonstrated to me that you have, in fact,
examined any of the material evidence against the ratification of
the 16th Amendment.
Instead, you have referred my formal, written petition to the
Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Rep.
Rostenkowski responded to you with documents that included a
cover letter dated April 8, 1991, and a copy of "Part IX:
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax,"
from CRS Report for Congress, 89-623 A, November 17, 1989. Your
letter of April 12, 1991 amounts to nothing more than another
cover letter, transmitting these documents to me.
To repeat, your response fails to demonstrate to me that you have
examined any of the material evidence against the 16th Amendment.
Moreover, I find a number of serious errors, omissions, and
deficiencies in the CRS Report from Rep. Rostenkowski. Permit me
to examine only those errors which I consider to be major ones,
in the interest of brevity.
First of all, the CRS Report attempts to answer this question:
Was the Sixteenth Amendment properly ratified?
In answer to this question, however, the Report limits its scope
to answering only two subordinate questions:
1. Did the President sign the resolution which became the
Sixteenth Amendment.
2. Do clerical errors in the ratifying resolutions of the
various state legislatures negate the ratification of
the Sixteenth Amendment?
Page J - 33 of 56
The Federal Zone:
I agree with the Report's answer to the first subordinate
question, namely, that constitutional amendments need not be
submitted to the President. However, I cannot accept the limited
scope of the second question, nor the limited scope of the answer
provided. The CRS Report would have us believe that the problems
with the 16th Amendment are limited to "variations from the
resolution enacted by Congress in punctuation, capitalization,
and/or spelling" [page 310]. Barbara, I certainly hope you do
not expect me to believe that a Governor's veto is the same as a
"clerical error", or that the failure to satisfy the 2/3 majority
required by some State Constitutions is a "clerical error!"
The problems with the 16th Amendment are not limited to
variations in punctuation, capitalization, and/or spelling.
These problems include serious, official acts by Governors, State
Legislatures, and at least one State Court. For example, the
Governor of the State of Arkansas vetoed the resolution to amend
the Constitution. The Kentucky Senate Journal recorded a vote of
9 FOR and 22 AGAINST the resolution. An Illinois State court
ruled that "it never became a law, and was as much a nullity as
if it had been the act or declaration of an unauthorized
assemblage of individuals." My letter to you dated April 15,
1991, summarized the major problems. At the risk of repeating
myself, permit me to summarize once again some of these problems,
as follows:
* Eleven States amended the proposed resolution.
* The Senate of the State of Kentucky rejected the
proposed amendment by a vote of 9 for and 22 against
ratification.
* Five States failed to ratify the amendment by the
required two-thirds majority in one of the chambers of
their legislatures (Georgia, Kansas, New York, New
Jersey, and Vermont).
* Minnesota, California and Ohio never sent official
notification of the action taken by their respective
legislatures.
* Another six States did not record whatever action was
taken by their respective legislatures in the Journals
of their General Assemblies.
* Ten States never voted on the proposed amendment.
* Nine States deleted the preamble to the joint
resolution.
* Twenty-six States changed the punctuation of the
preamble.
Page J - 34 of 56
Appendix J
* Twenty-five States changed the punctuation of the
resolution.
* Twenty-four States changed the capitalization of
certain words.
* Nineteen States made grammatical changes.
* An Illinois State Court ruled that "it never became a
law and was as much a nullity as if it had been the act
or declaration of an unauthorized assemblage of
individuals." (Ryan vs Lynch, 68 Ill. 160)
* The Governor of the State of Arkansas vetoed the
resolution, the Arkansas Legislature never overrode his
veto, and the Arkansas Constitution did not exempt
Constitutional amendments from a governor's signature.
* Oklahoma changed the proposal so as to require the
laying of an income tax pursuant to a census or
enumeration, the precise requirement the proposed
amendment sought to alleviate.
On February 15, 1913, the Solicitor of the State Department
advised Secretary of State Philander C. Knox that:
"... under provisions of the Constitution a legislature is
not authorized to alter IN ANY WAY the amendment proposed by
Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely
in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed
amendment."
("Ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States," Office of the Solicitor, emphasis added)
The CRS Report also errs by expecting readers to accept the
proposition that "the correctness of the Secretary's
certification is a political question and therefore his
certification is conclusive upon the courts" [emphasis added].
This is tantamount to saying that fraud is a "political question"
and cannot be adjudicated by any courts because it is fraud -- a
notion that is patently absurd. Moreover, the following criteria
are quoted to identify the existence of a political question in a
given case:
* a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
standards for resolving it
Page J - 35 of 56
The Federal Zone:
* the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretion
* the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent
resolution without expressing lack of the respect due
coordinate branches of government.
There is no lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
standards for resolving the factual problems with 16th Amendment.
In fact, there are plenty of such standards; they are called
rules of evidence, and they are so fundamental to jurisprudence
in this country, they are required reading for first-year law
students everywhere. The judiciary enjoys a well established
body of rules for discovering, admitting, and managing all
manners of material evidence.
The process for amending the Constitution is clearly written into
the Constitution itself. As such, there exists a clear "initial
policy determination", and this policy determination is clearly
not of a kind for nonjudicial discretion. The Constitution does
not authorize the Secretary of State to exercise any discretion
when certifying amendments thereto. Specifically, the Secretary
of State is not empowered to decide that "the approval of the
Governor is not necessary and that he has not the power to veto
in such cases," even if the Secretary sincerely believes, albeit
wrongly, that he does enjoy this power.
Courts can and have undertaken independent resolution of such
issues without expressing a lack of respect due to other branches
of government. An Illinois Court has already voided that State's
vote on the resolution to approve the 16th Amendment. The U.S.
Supreme Court has declared several acts of Congress to be
unconstitutional. If the Secretary of State fails to abide by
the official guidelines for amending the Constitution, it is he
who lacks respect due to the other branches of government. It is
he who has failed to abide by his solemn oath of office, namely,
to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. The
high Court is under no obligation to "express respect" for the
other branches of the federal government by allowing their
unconstitutional acts to remain intact and uncorrected. On the
contrary, the federal system of checks and balances has made this
corrective action an essential government institution.
The second major problem I have with the CRS Report has to do
with the following two questions:
1. What is income?
2. Are wages taxable as income?
Page J - 36 of 56
Appendix J
In answer to the first question, the Report summarizes the
definition of "income" as follows:
Income has been defined as gain derived from capital, from
labor, or from both combined. The operative word in this
definition is gain. Gain, in the tax context, is the
surplus when the basis of an item ... is subtracted from the
item's fair market value.
[CRS Report, page 316, emphasis added]
I have no dispute with this definition. However, in answer to
the second question, the Report uses the following example:
... if John Doe works 5 hours for $5.00 per hour, is the
$25.00 he receives taxable income to him? As we have seen
in the above analysis, we must determine if there has been a
gain which is realized and recognized.
To see if there was a gain we do not look only to the fair
market value of the labor, but rather we determine the
difference between the fair market value and his basis
(cost) in the labor. Generally one has a zero basis in
one's own labor. Therefore, Doe's gain is $25.00 minus 0,
or $25.00. This gain is realized when Doe is paid or has
right to receive payment. [pages 316-317, emphasis added]
Unfortunately for the CRS Report, it cites absolutely no
authority for its empty assertion that "generally one has a zero
basis in one's own labor". This assertion is a fatal flaw. It
has been made without reference to the relevant decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court, and without reference to the intent of the
framers of the 16th Amendment. As such, this assertion is
arbitrary; it is also ludicrous. Author Alan Stang explains why
it is ludicrous, and does so better than anyone else:
We warned you that reading this book could be dangerous to
people with heart conditions. Now that you have gotten off
the floor, you may want to read that paragraph again. Yes,
it does really say what you thought it says, doesn't it? It
says that generally (not specifically?) you have a zero
basis in your labor. In other words, it says your labor is
worthless. Now you know. Why does your employer, who is
presumably intelligent, buy something that is worthless?
Notice that these government authors do admit you must have
gain in order to have income, even if wages are your only
receipts.
[Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Alta Loma, CA, Mount Sinai Press,
1988, page 78, emphasis added]
Page J - 37 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Attached to this letter, please find numerous authoritative
definitions of "taxable income" as this phrase is clearly and
consistently defined by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and
lower courts which concur. These decisions remain in full force
today. Note, in particular, that the Supreme Court has already
instructed Congress that it is essential to distinguish between
what is and what is not "income", and to apply that distinction
according to truth and substance. In that instruction, the high
Court has told Congress that it has absolutely no power to be
arbitrary (or ludicrous) in its official definition of income:
Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the
matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the
Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to
legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can
be lawfully exercised. [Eisner vs Macomber, 252 US 189]
Remember, this is not the writing of some radical constitutional
libertarian. These are the words of the Supreme Court, in a case
which is one of the most famous and important rulings to render
official definitions of "income". Whatever arguments you choose
to make from this point forward, those arguments would certainly
benefit from a knowledge of the relevant case law in this area.
I mean, if we're talking gasoline taxes, then we know the subject
of the tax is gasoline; if we're talking tobacco taxes, then we
know the subject is tobacco. Why should a tax on "income" be any
different? Just because the Congressional Research Service
chooses to differ with the Supreme Court? Just because the IRS
uses police power to enforce a different definition? Just
because the Federal Reserve needs a powerful agency to collect
interest payments for its syndicated monopoly on private credit?
Here, I find it necessary to repeat the conclusions of a
recognized authority who has studied this issue in depth. After
reviewing all the relevant federal court decisions for the past
80 years, constitutional tax expert and author Jeffrey A.
Dickstein has written the following to summarize his findings:
Income has been defined by the United States Supreme Court
to be a profit or a gain derived from various sources, such
as labor and capital. A tax directly on the source is a
direct tax, and must still be apportioned. A tax on the
income derived from the source need not be apportioned.
Labor, the labor contract, and the right to sell labor have
all been held by the Supreme Court to constitute property.
The procedure to determine if there is a gain derived from
the sale of property has been set forth by Congress. Gain
is derived only if one receives over and above the fair
market value of the cost of the property. These basic
principles are simple to state and simple to apply. They
also lead to one inescapable conclusion:
Page J - 38 of 56
Appendix J
WAGES DO NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME.
[from Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, Missoula, MT,
Custom Prints, 1990, pages 277-280, emphasis added]
Representative Boxer, I must now go on record to state, clearly
and unequivocally, that you have failed me. You have failed me
because you have failed to keep the promise you made before
several hundred witnesses on August 22, 1990. You have failed me
because you have failed to uphold and defend the Constitution of
the United States. This Constitution is my explicit delegation
of power to you, an elected member of the Congress of the United
States.
You have failed me because, by shuffling papers back and forth,
you have deliberately refused to examine the material evidence
which impugns the entire ratification process of the 16th
Amendment. This material evidence proves that a massive fiscal
fraud has been perpetrated by the federal government upon the
people of this land, a massive fiscal fraud that began in the
year 1913 and continues until today.
Until and unless you demonstrate to me that you have examined
this material evidence, I am very sad to say I now have no choice
but to include you among the many persons who are responsible for
perpetrating this fraud upon our entire nation.
I want you to know that this matter is much too important to me,
and to millions of hard-working Americans, for me to be dissuaded
by some little paper war you prefer to wage.
Either do the job you were elected to do, or be mature enough to
accept the legal and political consequences.
Consider yourself warned.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Mitch Modeleski, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
enclosures: "Defining Income: The Court Record"
Text of first published advertisement
Computer analysis of evidence
against the 16th amendment
copy: Rep. Dan Rostenkowski
Page J - 39 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Defining Income: The Court Record
Repeat these words, out loud, at least three times a day:
WE, THE PEOPLE, CAN
ABOLISH THE ILLEGAL INCOME TAX
Please join us in teaching the American people to:
TAKE THE SECOND STEP
to educate each other with the relevant facts and authorities.
Wages are not "taxable income" as the term is clearly and
consistently defined by U.S. Supreme Court decisions that remain
in full force today.
We now cite verbatim the relevant decisions from the U.S. Supreme
Court and lower courts which concur:
Income is NOT everything that comes in:
We must reject ... the broad contention submitted in behalf
of the Government that all receipts -- everything that
comes in -- are income within the proper definition of
"gross income" ....
[Southern Pacific Company vs John Z. Lowe, 247 US 330]
Corporate profits are "income":
[Income] imports, as used here, something entirely distinct
from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or
as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain
or increase arising from corporate activities.
[Emanuel J. Doyle vs Mitchell Brothers Company, 247 US 179]
The Constitution PROHIBITS direct taxes without apportionment:
This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income
tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon
property, and was invalid because not apportioned according
to population as prescribed by the Constitution ... for
"income" may be defined as the gain derived from capital,
from labor, or from both combined.
[Stratton's Independence vs Howbert 231 US 406]
Page J - 40 of 56
Appendix J
Congress CANNOT change the Constitution:
In order, therefore, that the clauses cited above from
Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and
effect ... it becomes essential to distinguish between what
is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and
to apply the distinction ... according to truth and
substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any
definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot
by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it
derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations
alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
[Mark Eisner vs Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 US 189]
Again, "income" is a gain, a profit:
Here we have the essential matter -- not a gain accruing
to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the
investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable
value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital
however invested or employed, and coming in, being
"derived," that is received or drawn by the recipient (the
taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit, and disposal --
that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers
the description.
[Mark Eisner vs Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 US 189]
Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY ruled that wages are not "income":
In determining the definition of the word "income" thus
arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter
into the refinements of lexicographers and economists and
has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to
be the commonly understood meaning of the term ....
We continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and,
since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the
sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment as
determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is
palpable that it was a "gain or profit" "produced by" or
"derived from" that investment, and that it "proceeded," and
was "severed" or rendered severable, from, by the sale for
cash, and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been
repeatedly declared to be taxable income ....
[Merchant's Loan & Trust vs Smietanka, 255 US 509]
Page J - 41 of 56
The Federal Zone:
"Income" has been legally and officially defined:
And the definition of "income" approved by this Court is:
"The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both
combined," provided it be understood to include profit
gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. ...
It is thus very plain that the statute imposes the income
tax on the proceeds of the sale of personal property to the
extent only that gains are derived therefrom by the vendor
....
[Goodrich vs Edwards, 255 US 527]
You do NOT obtain "income" by charging for services rendered:
The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But
it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the
statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It
taxes only income "derived" from many different sources;
one does not "derive income" by rendering services and
charging for them.
[Edwards vs Keith, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 231
F111]
"Income" means "gain" -- "gain" means "profit":
Income" ... means "gain" "derived" from, and not accruing
to, capital or labor or from both combined, including profit
gained through the sale or conversion of capital, the gain
not being taxable until realized, and, in such connection,
"gain" means profit or something of exchangeable value, and
"derived" means proceeding from property, severed from
capital, however invested or employed, and coming in,
received or drawn by taxpayer for his separate use, benefit,
and disposal.
[Staples vs U.S., District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 21 F.
Supp. 737]
No gain, no income -- no income, no tax:
Income is nothing more nor less than realized gain .... It
is not synonymous with receipts .... Whatever may
constitute income, therefore, must have the essential
feature of gain to the recipient .... If there is no gain,
there is no income.
[Conner vs U.S., District Court, Houston Division, 303 F.
Supp. 1187]
Page J - 42 of 56
Appendix J
Wages and profits are two DIFFERENT things:
There is a clear distinction between "profit" and "wages" or
compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be
regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.
[Oliver vs Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858]
Payment for labor is NOT profit:
Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is
not profit.
[Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. vs Matthews, 345 Pa. 239; 47 A.
2d 277, 280]
The meaning of "income" has been CONSISTENT in law:
... "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used
in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth
Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently
passed ....
[Bowers vs Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174]
Again, "income" has had the SAME MEANING in law:
... and before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated ...
what it later held, that "income," as used in the revenue
acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has
the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.
[Burnet vs Harmel, 287 US 103]
"Income" is NOT the same as "gross receipts":
Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by
Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by
Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross
income. The tax is not, never has been and could not
constitutionally be upon "gross receipts" ....
[Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, U.S. District
Court, Maryland, 102 Federal Supplement 902]
Page J - 43 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Try to find a principle that is better settled:
Remember that our source is not some "tax protest" group.
Just about everything we are telling you comes from the U.S.
Supreme Court. It would be difficult, and perhaps impos-
sible, in our system of jurisprudence, to find a principle
better settled than the one we have been citing.
[Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Mt. Sinai Press, POB 1220, Alta Loma,
California 91701, 1988]
Other cases not cited here say the SAME THING:
In addition to the cases cited above, the following also
support and affirm this definition of "income": ... United
States vs Supplee-Biddle Hardware Co., 265 US 189; United
States vs Phellis 257 US 156; Miles vs Safe Deposit & T.
Co., 259 US 247; Irwin vs Gavit 268 US 161; Edwards vs
Cuba R. Co., 268 US 628.
[Irwin Schiff, The Great Income Tax Hoax, Freedom Books, POB
5303, Hamden, Connecticut 06518, 1985, page 475]
Take these citations to your tax attorney or CPA, and demand a
response. Research assembled for you by:
Account for Better Citizenship
Post Office Box 6189
San Rafael, California Republic
Postal Zone 94903-0189
Page J - 44 of 56
Appendix J
[Text of First Published Advertisement]
Repeat these words, out loud, at least three times a day:
WE, THE PEOPLE CAN
ABOLISH INCOME TAX
Please join us in demanding the United States Congress to
TAKE THE FIRST STEP
to authorize a full study to find other ways of funding the U.S.
government without direct taxes on personal income sources.
The I.R.S. has already conducted a limited study of several
alternatives and documented their findings at taxpayer expense.
We now want to condition all public servants to realize that
personal income taxes are a horrible scourge upon the economic
prosperity of all American citizens. These taxes must stop.
When we, the people have the power to abolish slavery, to abolish
prohibition, and to enact women's suffrage; when we, the people
can declare a national holiday to celebrate our Declaration of
Independence, then
We, the people can refuse to elect Representatives who
fail to advocate the abolition of federal income taxes.
It is as simple as ABC. If you are a citizen and registered
voter, then know that you have this power. We, the people can
abolish an entire system of taxes expressly prohibited by the
U.S. Constitution itself (see Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4).
Your donation will be used to purchase full-page ads in major
newspapers throughout the country, advocating the abolition of
federal taxes on personal income. $1 from every citizen buys a
whole lot of advertising! To this end, we mutually pledge to
each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Please send your donations, and any letters of support, to:
Account for Better Citizenship
Post Office Box 6189
San Rafael, California 94903-0189
We will keep your name, address, and ALL other identification
completely confidential UNLESS you authorize us in writing to use
it in our advertising. We respect your right to privacy.
May you be prosperous beyond your wildest dreams!
Sincerely yours, P.S. The mailing address of Congress:
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
/s/ Mitch Modeleski
Founder United we stand and divided we fall.
Page J - 45 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Failures to Ratify the 16th Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States:
A Status Summary by State
See Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error
State Notes #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9
------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Alabama YES YES
Arizona YES YES YES
Arkansas YES YES YES YES
California YES YES YES
Colorado YES YES
Connecticut (10) YES
Delaware YES YES
Florida (11) YES
Georgia YES YES YES YES YES
Idaho YES YES YES YES
Illinois YES YES YES
Indiana YES YES YES
Iowa YES YES YES
Kansas YES YES YES YES YES
Kentucky YES YES YES YES YES
Louisiana YES YES YES
Maine YES YES YES YES
Maryland YES YES YES YES
Massachusetts YES YES YES
Michigan YES YES
Minnesota YES YES YES
Mississippi YES YES YES
Missouri YES YES YES
Montana YES YES YES
Nebraska YES YES YES
Nevada YES YES YES
New Hampshire YES YES
New Jersey YES YES YES
New Mexico YES
New York YES YES YES YES YES
North Carolina YES YES YES
North Dakota YES YES YES
Ohio YES YES YES YES
Oklahoma YES YES YES
Oregon YES YES YES
Pennsylvania (12) YES
Rhode Island (13) YES
South Carolina YES YES YES
South Dakota YES YES YES
Tennessee YES YES YES YES
Texas YES YES YES
Utah (14) YES
Vermont YES YES YES YES
Virginia (15) YES
Washington YES YES YES
West Virginia YES YES YES YES
Wisconsin YES YES
Wyoming YES YES YES
Page J - 46 of 56
Appendix J
Description of Errors:
1. Failure to concur in U. S. Senate Joint Resolution No. 40 in
that various changes were made to the text of the official
Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress.
2. Failure to follow the guidelines for the return of a
certified copy of the ratification action, as contained in
Congressional Concurrent Resolution No. 6, and as required
by Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of 1878.
3. Governor vetoed the resolution and the State Legislature
failed to override the veto.
4. Resolution was not submitted to the Governor for approval.
5. State Senate failed to pass the resolution by a required 2/3
majority.
6. State Assembly or House failed to pass the resolution by a
required 2/3 majority.
7. State Senate failed to pass the resolution.
8. State Assembly or House failed to pass the resolution.
9. Other State constitutional violations not mentioned above.
(Source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of the 16th
Amendment and Personal Income Tax, by Bill Benson and M. J. 'Red'
Beckman, published by Constitutional Research Assoc., Box 550,
South Holland, IL 60473, April 1985)
Notes:
(10) The Senate rejected the minority report of the committee on
judiciary and federal relations recommending ratification of
this amendment on June 23, 1911, by a vote of 6 to 19.
(Connecticut Senate Journal, 1911, pp. 1346-1348)
(11) Florida House passed H.J. Res. 192, ratifying this amendment
on May 21, 1913, by a vote of 59 to 0. (Florida House
Journal, 1913, p. 1686.) The Senate committee on
constitution recommended that the resolution do not pass.
May 27, 1913. (Florida Senate Journal, 1913, p. 1745.)
(12) The House passed a joint resolution ratifying the sixteenth
amendment on May 10, 1911, by a vote of 139 to 4.
(Pennsylvania House Journal, 1911, pp. 2690-2691.) The
Senate referred the joint resolution to the committee on
judiciary special, where it lay. (Pennsylvania Senate
Journal, 1911, p. 2162.)
Page J - 47 of 56
The Federal Zone:
(13) Senate resolution refusing to ratify this amendment was
concurred in by House April 29, 1910. (Rhode Island House
Journal, April 29, 1910.)
(14) The House rejected this amendment on March 9, 1911, by a
vote of 31 to 10. (Utah House Journal, 1911, pp. 606-607.)
The Senate passed the resolution ratifying the amendment by
a vote of 12 to 2 on February 17, 1911. (Utah Senate
Journal, 1911, p. 256.)
(15) The Senate ratified this amendment by a vote of 19 to 5 on
March 9, 1910. (Virginia Senate Journal, 1910, pp. 651-
652.) The House Journal, 1910, does not show that this
resolution ratifying the amendment ever came to a vote.
(Notes 10-15 from U.S. Senate Document No. 240, 71st Congress,
"Ratification of the Constitution and Amendments by the States")
Page J - 48 of 56
Appendix J
Defense Strategy 1:
States Made Changes to the Text of the Resolution
state error1
--------------- ------
1 Alabama YES
2 Arizona YES
3 Arkansas YES
4 California YES
5 Colorado YES
6 Delaware YES
7 Georgia YES
8 Idaho YES
9 Illinois YES
10 Indiana YES
11 Iowa YES
12 Kansas YES
13 Kentucky YES [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Louisiana YES
15 Maine YES
16 Maryland YES
17 Massachusetts YES
18 Michigan YES
19 Minnesota YES
20 Mississippi YES
21 Missouri YES
22 Montana YES
23 Nebraska YES
24 Nevada YES
25 New Hampshire YES
26 New Jersey YES
27 New York YES
28 North Carolina YES
29 North Dakota YES
30 Ohio YES
31 Oklahoma YES
32 Oregon YES
33 South Carolina YES
34 South Dakota YES
35 Tennessee YES
36 Texas YES
37 Vermont YES
38 Washington YES
39 West Virginia YES
40 Wisconsin YES
41 Wyoming YES [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 Connecticut
43 Florida
44 New Mexico
45 Pennsylvania
46 Rhode Island
47 Utah
48 Virginia
Page J - 49 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Defense Strategy 2:
Various Violations of State Constitutions
state error9
--------------- ------
1 Arizona YES
2 Arkansas YES
3 California YES
4 Colorado YES
5 Georgia YES
6 Idaho YES
7 Illinois YES
8 Indiana YES
9 Iowa YES
10 Kansas YES
11 Kentucky YES
12 Louisiana YES
13 Maine YES [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Maryland YES
15 Massachusetts YES
16 Michigan YES
17 Minnesota YES
18 Mississippi YES
19 Missouri YES
20 Montana YES
21 Nebraska YES
22 Nevada YES
23 New Mexico YES
24 New York YES
25 North Carolina YES
26 North Dakota YES
27 Ohio YES
28 Oklahoma YES
29 Oregon YES
30 South Carolina YES
31 Tennessee YES
32 Texas YES
33 Vermont YES
34 Washington YES
35 West Virginia YES
36 Wyoming YES [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
37 Alabama
38 Connecticut
39 Delaware
40 Florida
41 New Hampshire
42 New Jersey
43 Pennsylvania
44 Rhode Island
45 South Dakota
46 Utah
47 Virginia
48 Wisconsin
Page J - 50 of 56
Appendix J
Defense Strategy 3:
States Failed to Follow Guidelines for Certified Copy
state error2
--------------- ------
1 Alabama YES
2 Arizona YES
3 Arkansas YES
4 California YES
5 Delaware YES
6 Georgia YES
7 Idaho YES
8 Illinois YES
9 Indiana YES
10 Iowa YES
11 Kansas YES
12 Kentucky YES
13 Louisiana YES [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Maine YES
15 Maryland YES
16 Massachusetts YES
17 Minnesota YES
18 Mississippi YES
19 Montana YES
20 Nebraska YES
21 Nevada YES
22 New Hampshire YES
23 New Jersey YES
24 New York YES
25 North Carolina YES
26 North Dakota YES
27 Ohio YES
28 Oklahoma YES
29 Oregon YES
30 South Carolina YES
31 South Dakota YES
32 Tennessee YES
33 Texas YES
34 Vermont YES
35 West Virginia YES
36 Wisconsin YES
37 Wyoming YES [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
38 Colorado
39 Connecticut
40 Florida
41 Michigan
42 Missouri
43 New Mexico
44 Pennsylvania
45 Rhode Island
46 Utah
47 Virginia
48 Washington
Page J - 51 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Defense Strategy 4:
Confirmed No's + Governor Vetoes + Errors 4 - 8
state error10 error3 error4 error5 error6 error7 error8
--------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1 Virginia (15) YES
2 Utah (14) YES
3 Rhode Island (13) YES
4 Pennsylvania (12) YES
5 Florida (11) YES
6 Connecticut (10) YES
7 Kentucky YES YES
8 Arkansas YES
9 New York YES YES
10 Idaho YES
11 Maryland YES
12 Missouri YES
13 Ohio YES
[number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 South Dakota YES
15 Washington YES
16 West Virginia YES
17 Kansas YES YES
18 Georgia YES YES
19 New Jersey YES
20 Vermont YES
21 Maine YES
22 Tennessee YES
[number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Alabama
24 Arizona
25 California
26 Colorado
27 Delaware
28 Illinois
29 Indiana
30 Iowa
31 Louisiana
32 Massachusetts
33 Michigan
34 Minnesota
35 Mississippi
36 Montana
37 Nebraska
38 Nevada
39 New Hampshire
40 New Mexico
41 North Carolina
42 North Dakota
43 Oklahoma
44 Oregon
45 South Carolina
46 Texas
47 Wisconsin
48 Wyoming
Page J - 52 of 56
Appendix J
Defense Strategy 5:
Failed House/Senate + Failed 2/3 + Vetoes and not Submitted to Governor
state error7 error8 error5 error6 error3 error4
--------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1 Georgia YES YES
2 Kentucky YES YES
3 Connecticut YES
4 Florida YES
5 Maine YES
6 Pennsylvania YES
7 Rhode Island YES
8 Tennessee YES
9 Utah YES
10 Virginia YES
11 Kansas YES YES
12 New Jersey YES
13 Vermont YES
[number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 New York YES YES
15 Arkansas YES
16 Idaho YES
17 Maryland YES
18 Missouri YES
19 Ohio YES
20 South Dakota YES
21 Washington YES
22 West Virginia YES
[number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Alabama
24 Arizona
25 California
26 Colorado
27 Delaware
28 Illinois
29 Indiana
30 Iowa
31 Louisiana
32 Massachusetts
33 Michigan
34 Minnesota
35 Mississippi
36 Montana
37 Nebraska
38 Nevada
39 New Hampshire
40 New Mexico
41 North Carolina
42 North Dakota
43 Oklahoma
44 Oregon
45 South Carolina
46 Texas
47 Wisconsin
48 Wyoming
Page J - 53 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Defense Strategy 6:
Confirmed No's + Governor Vetoes + Not Submitted to Governor
state error10 error3 error4 error5 error6 error7 error8
--------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1 Virginia (15) YES
2 Utah (14) YES
3 Rhode Island (13) YES
4 Pennsylvania (12) YES
5 Florida (11) YES
6 Connecticut (10) YES
7 Kentucky YES YES
8 Arkansas YES
9 New York YES YES
10 Idaho YES
11 Maryland YES
12 Missouri YES
13 Ohio YES
[number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 South Dakota YES
15 Washington YES
16 West Virginia YES
17 Kansas YES YES
18 Georgia YES YES
19 New Jersey YES
20 Vermont YES
21 Maine YES
22 Tennessee YES
[number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Alabama
24 Arizona
25 California
26 Colorado
27 Delaware
28 Illinois
29 Indiana
30 Iowa
31 Louisiana
32 Massachusetts
33 Michigan
34 Minnesota
35 Mississippi
36 Montana
37 Nebraska
38 Nevada
39 New Hampshire
40 New Mexico
41 North Carolina
42 North Dakota
43 Oklahoma
44 Oregon
45 South Carolina
46 Texas
47 Wisconsin
48 Wyoming
Page J - 54 of 56
Appendix J
REGISTERED U.S. MAIL: c/o P. O. Box 6189
Return Receipt Requested San Rafael, California
Postal Zone 94903-0189
May 22, 1991
Rep. Dan Rostenkowski
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Postal Zone 20515
Dear Rep. Rostenkowski:
With this letter I formally petition you for redress of a major
legal grievance which I now have with the federal government of
the United States of America.
As you must already know from copies of correspondence addressed
by me to Rep. Barbara Boxer and forwarded to you by me and also
by her office, the material evidence in my possession indicates
that the 16th Amendment, the so-called income tax amendment, was
never lawfully ratified. This evidence indicates that the act of
declaring the 16th Amendment "ratified" was an act of outright
fraud by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox in the year 1913.
I remind you that there is no statute of limitations on fraud.
My previous petitions to Rep. Barbara Boxer are dated December
24, 1990; April 15, 1991; and May 3, 1991. Copies of those
petitions are again enclosed and included by reference in this
formal petition to you.
Please understand that I take Rep. Boxer's referral to you of my
original petition to her, dated 12/24/90, as prima facie evidence
that you are, in fact, in the chain of government officials
responsible for administrative due process in this matter.
It is for this reason that I am taking all steps known to me, in
order to exhaust all known remedies for redress of this major
legal grievance with the federal government.
If you are not, in fact, a responsible official in the chain of
administrative due process in this matter, I will require from
you written evidence of the official(s) who do constitute this
chain of due process. This written evidence must be received by
me within forty-five (45) calendar days of today, which day is
Saturday, July 6, 1991. Absent any written evidence from you by
this deadline, I will therefore be forced to conclude that you do
sit at the end of this chain of administrative due process.
Thank you very much for your consideration in this important
matter, which by now has affected many millions of Americans in
so many ways.
more ...
Page J - 55 of 56
The Federal Zone:
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Mitch Modeleski, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
enclosures: copies of petitions to Rep. Boxer
copies: Rep. Barbara Boxer
interested colleagues
files
Page J - 56 of 56
