REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE - 16TH AMENDMENT NOT RATIFIED
IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS In Re: WE THE PEOPLE vs CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was not Ratified in Accordance with the Provisions of U.S. Const. art. V, and is Null and Void DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIVE HEARING DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION OF NULLIFICATION Come now the below signatories, representing the People of the United States, who hereby Petition the Congress of the United States for redress of grievance, and demand Congress commence an investigation into the fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and issue a resolution declaring the Sixteenth Amendment to be null and void, ab initio, in that less than the required number of States voted to ratify same, in violation of U.S. Const. art. V. WHEREAS, U.S. Const. art. V requires proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States must be ratified by three-fourths of the States then in the Union; and WHEREAS, the States are without jurisdiction to alter or amend the language of a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress (see Ames, The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of The United States, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1886, at 294 (Vol. II, Gov. Printing Office (1897); Amending the Federal Constitution-Procedures of the General Services Administration and of the State Legislatures, Report No. 80-89 A 731/77 at 8, Congressional Research Service (April 18, 1980); Memo from the Office of the United States Solicitor to Secretary of State Knox (Feb. 15, 1913)(on file with the National Archives); and WHEREAS, at all times relevant hereto, Revised Statute 205 imposed an administrative duty on Secretary of State Knox to review the "official notices" received at the Department of State to insure the proposed Sixteenth Amendment had been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution; and WHEREAS, the States submitted their "official notice" of their respective action in the form of enrolled resolutions, duly signed by the appropriate officers of the houses of each State's Legislature; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has held that such duly enrolled resolutions constitute the official authentication of the action of the respective houses of legislative bodies, which are conclusive as a matter of law (seeField v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Lesser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)); and WHEREAS, the "official notices" received at the Department of State show on their face that what the States ratified is different from what Congress proposed; and WHEREAS, Secretary of State Knox knew there were differences; and WHEREAS, Secretary of State Knox obtained an opinion from the Solicitor of the United States; and WHEREAS, the Solicitor acknowledged States have no jurisdiction to alter the language proposed by Congress; and WHEREAS, the Solicitor relied upon a presumption that the States did not intentionally modify the language of the proposed Sixteenth Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Solicitor relied upon a presumption that the changes in the enrolled resolutions were merely typographical errors; and WHEREAS, in 1984 William J. Benson went to the capitols of all forty-eight States then in the Union in 1913; and WHEREAS, William J. Benson obtained certified copies of the Legislative Journals from all forty-eight States, and WHEREAS William J. Benson also traveled to the Offices of the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and obtained certified copies of the State Department documents; and WHEREAS, the certified documents conclusively establish that the presumptions relied upon by Secretary of State Knox and the Solicitor are false because States, in fact, intentionally amended the language of the amendment proposed by Congress; and WHEREAS, subtracting those States from the official tally of the States that voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, less than the constitutionally required number of States ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment; and WHEREAS, only four States voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment according to the provisions of the Constitution, and; WHEREAS, in numerous federal District Court and Court of Appeals cases the federal judiciary has refused to look at the certified documents contending the issue of the ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment is a "political question" for Congress; and WHEREAS, in the absence of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the federal income tax found at Title 26, United States Code, is a non-apportioned direct tax which violates the taxing provisions of the United States Constitution (seePollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, aff. Reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)); NOW THEREFORE, the People of the United States demand the United States Congress conduct an investigation into the above allegations, and thereafter, being satisfied the declaration of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment by Secretary of State Knox is fraudulent, and that less than thirty-six States voted to ratify the proposed Sixteenth Amendment according to the provisions of the Constitution, issue its resolution declaring the Sixteenth Amendment null and void ab initio.