Betreff: Who owns who?? for your considerations..........
Von: aqu8rianman
Datum: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 04:11:52 -0000


for due considerations by all...........may need to dissiminate FAR
and WIDE..............while you still can.


Robert Schulz
We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road,
Queensbury, NY 12804

Dear Mr. Schulz,


I recently received an Internet press release from your organization
concerning the recent agreement by members of the federal government
to hold a two-day hearing in September to discuss the validity of the
16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The hearing is
sponsored by your organization. I understand your organization
maintains that due to irregularities in the ratification process, the
16th Amendment is invalid. Further, I understand your organization
maintains United States citizens are not obligated to pay income taxes
because of constitutional questions surrounding the validity of the
16th Amendment.

While from a strictly personal point of view I would welcome not
paying federal income tax, the fact is a recent federal court decision
in which I was involved completely refutes any challenge to the
legality of the 16th Amendment. In sum, this case, Walker v
United States, in combination with other judicial rulings grants
Congress complete control over the amendatory process of the
Constitution and thus complete control of the entire Constitution
itself. Specifically, the case addressed the convention clause of
Article V of the United States Constitution, but due to the language
of the ruling the power of Congress is now unlimited. A copy of this
ruling is included with this cover letter.

There is a direct link between your organization's issue and Walker v
UnitedStates. Long before your organization even existed the states
were attempting to repeal the 16th Amendment by submitting
applications for a convention as specified under Article V of the
United States Constitution. In fact, the repeal of the 16th Amendment
has received more applications for a convention from the states than
any other subject in the history of this nation. In total, 39 states
have applied to Congress for a convention to repeal the 16th
Amendment. As Congress has not acted to accept any recessions of these
applications, it is clear these applications remain in effect to this
date. (Please see pages 689, 776 in the overlength brief referred to
in the accompanying court order for more specific information. This
brief can be downloaded at website www.article5.org.) The total of 39
states is at least one more state than is required for ratification of
an amendment repealing the 16th Amendment and five more states that
are required for a convention to be called for that purpose.

It cannot be overstressed that until the ruling by Chief Judge
Coughenour in Walker v United States it was universal opinion, based
on the language of Article V, that it was obligatory Congress call a
convention if the proper number of states applied.
Alexander Hamilton, the author of Article V, most forcefully expressed
this in Federalist No. 85. (Please see pages 256-264 of the overlength
brief for a more extensive discussion of Hamilton's writing.) However,
because there had been a judicial ruling in this matter this universal
opinion that was shared among constitutional scholars, attorneys and
even members of Congress has now been replaced by an official
government policy entirely contrary to that opinion.

That basic policy is Congress may ignore any directive of the
Constitution imposed on it by the word "shall." In short, Congress or
any agency created by it is not bound by the Constitution. In his
ruling Judge Coughenour altered the meaning of the word "shall" from
its previous obligatory meaning to that of an option on the part of
the government. He did this by declaring Congress has discretion
regarding whether to call a convention under the political question
doctrine where the Founders intended no such discretion. (Please refer
to the letter sent to members of Congress in April of this year for
a further explanation of this assertion.) Judge Coughenour thus
assumed the right of the judiciary to actually amend the Constitution
by judicial decree. As to his cogitative reasoning in this regard, I
suggest a careful reading of his order is appropriate. I especially
direct your attention to paragraph two of his order where he discusses
the overlength brief and "overlength motion". I remind anyone reading
this letter there is no such thing as an overlength motion. If there
were the local rules of the Court would address it and they do not.
Regardless of his reasoning, the ruling by Judge Coughenour
is now the prevailing law of the land as it is the latest ruling
determining who controls the amendatory process of the Constitution.
Obviously whoever controls this process controls the Constitution and
thus the nation. This is why the Founders never intended such power
rest with a single political body but Judge Coughenour's decision has
accomplished exactly that.

It is an infinitesimal step from this ruling to the heart of your
issue. Clearly if Congress is now in complete control of the
amendatory process, it certainly possesses the power to determine
whether an amendment regardless of its ratification history, or even
if it was ratified at all as in the case of the 14th Amendment, is an
amendment to the Constitution. (Please see pages 395, 401 (footnote
917), 461 (footnote 1079), 463 (footnote 1080) of the overlength brief
for a discussion of the questionable ratification
history of the 14th Amendment.) Indeed, under the Walker v United
States ruling, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing an
"amendment" to the Constitution with the issue never even being
submitted to the states or people for ratification.


Therefore, if the IRS states the 16th Amendment is legal, that agency
as a  representative of Congress is correct regardless of any facts to
the contrary. The IRS nor any other agency of national government need
no longer worry about the expressed language of the Constitution or
its intent. As part of a dictatorship, the IRS free to do
whatever it pleases. Thus, whatever level of participation in this
hearing the IRS or Congress chooses make will be for public relations
purposes only as they have no other legal obligation to this nation in
regards to satisfying the language of the Constitution.
The best can be said of Judge Coughenour's ruling is that it created
an oligarchy of the national government removing the sovereign power
of this nation entirely from the people and placing that sovereign
power totally in the hands of the national government.
Thus, any "right" granted to the people in the Constitution from
voting, to free speech, to trial rights are totally at the discretion
of the government as they all are expressed by the
word "shall" in the Constitution and thus are now merely options
controlled entirely by
the national government.


In his press release to your organization Congressman Ron Paul said,
in part, "…[T] he right to a formal response is inherent in the
constitutional right to petition the government." In order to verify
whether or not Congress truly participated and desired
the dictatorial powers granted them by Judge Coughenour, I sent a
letter (copy enclosed) by certified mail (copy of certified mailing
enclosed) to key members of Congress describing the case and its
effect. In sum my letter accused Congress of desiring to
become a dictatorship by assuming complete control of the amendatory
process contrary to the expressed plan of the Founders and that
Congress knew a favorable decision in Walker v United States would
achieve this goal. Further, Congress approved of the legal
tactics used by the local United States Attorney to achieve this goal.
None of the officials contacted have refuted a single allegation made
in that letter.


I doubt any government official who receives this letter and its
accompanying material will refute any allegation made here or in my
other letter. Hence, there will be no formal response from Congress.
The problem is, as noted in my longer letter, their silence
and inaction in regards to calling a convention as specified under the
terms of Article V of the Constitution only serves to prove these
allegations true and thus becomes their formal response. As noted in
my first letter to Congress, there either is a convention or
there is not a convention. The Constitution is either obeyed or it is
not obeyed. The states have applied in sufficient number to cause a
convention and thus repeal the 16th Amendment. Congress has chosen not
to obey the Constitution and thus prevents the repeal of that
amendment. The judiciary has affirmed this decision. In doing so, the
judiciary has also negated any challenge to the 16th Amendment by use
of the same logic it employed to defeat the obligatory language of
Article V. The Coughenour ruling establishes the fact even if your
organization is correct about the validity of the 16th
Amendment it is immaterial. Your position will simply be ignored by
the national government and such action is entirely legal.


Hence, based on the decision in Walker v United States, Congress, and
the IRS, may tax as they please regardless of whether the 16th
Amendment was legally ratified or not.

I have elected to send this information via certified mail to both
sides of the issue of the legality of the 16th Amendment and to other
interested parties.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Bill Walker

Cc: Dan Bryant, DOJ
Charles Rossotti, IRS
Connie Brod, C-Span
Roscoe Bartlett, U.S. Congress
Ron Paul, U.S. Congress