June 24, 2002 Gerald J. Klaas http://sacto.com/g

## An open letter to the Internal Revenue Service,
National Director for Legislative Affairs,
Floyd L. Williams

Mr. Williams,

Thank you for your response of May 23, 2002 (attached) at least attempting to respond to a citizen's questions regarding the federal government. Unfortunately, I do not find your letter and attached document titled The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments to be a satifactory answer to my petition for redress of grievences as guaranteed me in the 1st Amendment, and submitted to my Congressman Richard Pombo.

First off, you say that the Department of Justice has responded to these 299 questions in a letter to Congressman Bartlett, and that you "fully concur". However, I do not receive Congressman Bartlett's mail, and you did not enclose a copy of such document, so I am in no position to evaluate if said document will answer my questions.

The document you did send labels many "anti-tax movement" arguments as "frivolous" as labeled by the courts in various cases. For many of the particular cases you cite, I completely agree with the courts. However, your letter states "I believe this document answers most, if not all, of the questions submitted by Mr. Shultz's group [We The People Foundation - http://www.givemeliberty.org ]." I wish to make known to you, and publicly, that I do not see that it does, and am still expecting a more complete answer to the questions (preferably enumerated to the particular question(s)).

I must say that your letter, and the title of the enclosed document, i.e. The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, gives me the impression that you believe that my questions are "frivolous". I believe they are not. But as you may view 299 questions as too many for one citizen to ask at one time, I will bring my point to a finer focus for you. It really all boils down to one question, "was the 16th Amendment properly ratified?"

I am in possession of evidence ( http://sacto.com/g ) that I believe proves that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was fraudulently certified as "ratified" in 1913. Your document The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, labels this as a "frivolous argument" and that "this argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue." I think it is disingenuous of you, if not patently dishonest, to represent the cited court cases as if they were the courts "addressing" the issue. Any high school civics student learns that our form of government is based on a separation of powers, and that the courts simply CANNOT "address" the issue of whether the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared ratified. As ratification of amendments is a legislative process, the courts can no more "address" the issue than can the president. Only Congress can certify amendments, the courts must then accept them as the basis of their decisions. So while the courts can rule on particular cases and label as "frivolous" arguments that may be presented within a particular case where two or more sections of our constitution conflict, they cannot "address" the issue of whether or not the Amendment was properly ratified. So while an agument may be "frivolous" to the court, it does not make it "frivolous" in general, or specifically to the legislative branch.

My entire argument, and the question that I'm asking within all of the 299 questions boils down to this. I want you, or some other official of my federal government, acting in an official capacity, to prove to me that the 16th Amendment WAS properly ratified in 1913. In particular, I would like an "official" response which states the EXACT language of the 16th Amendment that was ratified by each of the "enough states ratifying the 16th Amendment even without Ohio", enumerated by state. So I expect your response to me to say, "Dear Mr. Klaas, the 16th Amendment reads, 'The Congress shall have power......' , and then enumerate for me the "enough states" that you count, and the date on which this EXACT language was ratified by that particular state legislature.

Again, as any high school civics student learns when studying how a bill becomes law, bills passed by both houses must have been passed with the EXACT same language. Likewise, Amendments to our Constitution when passed by state legislatures must be passed with the EXACT same language, otherwise, they are simply not the same amendment, and cannot be counted as such.

Mr. Williams, (and Ms. Wells 50-7749) I was once a federal employee and know that you have taken the same oath that I did, swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And just like a soldier has a duty to ignore an order he believes to be morally wrong, you have a duty to exercise due diligence in ensuring that the laws you enforce are indeed Constitutional. I now challenge you to find for yourself, and prove to me, that I am mistaken, that in fact, "enough" states DID ratify the EXACT same language of the 16th Amendment, and that you are not unknowingly violating the very principles we both have sworn to uphold.

I personally believe that if you already know that "enough" states did not ratify the EXACT same language, yet are representing through the official document The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, that they have, then you and the other authors and editors of this document have become conspirators to deny me of my constitutional rights, and would be prosecutable under RICO laws. If you do not already KNOW that there is a valid question about the validity of the 16th Amendment, then this letter should serve as notice to you to perform the due diligence required of every official of government. So after today, you have been put on notice. If at anytime in the future, my above agument is found to be true, you will be a co-conspirator, and not simply an unknowing (and non-culpable) participant.

I look forward to your response,

Gerald Klaas
Sacramento, CA

cc: Richard Pombo
The Sacramento Bee
The Sacramento News and Review

HOME Correspondence page

This page, and every page on this site ( http://sacto.com/taxes ), is copyright ©2002 Gerald Klaas. Permission is granted to copy, print and redistribute for private, non-commercial, non-government use. Specific rights claimed can be found on the "copyright" page of the site http://sacto.com/taxes