Mitchell P. Modeleski, Sui Juris c/o General Delivery San Rafael, California Republic, U.S.A. In His Own Stead IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN THE PEOPLE OF THE CALIFORNIA ) Number _____________________ REPUBLIC, ex relatione, ) ) AFFIDAVIT MITCHELL P. MODELESKI, ) of Petitioner in Support of Petitioner At Law ) Petition for a Peremptory ) WRIT OF MANDAMUS v. ) to compel the performance ) of a duty owed to BARBARA BOXER, ) Petitioner Respondent at Law ) ) _____________________________) THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC TO: The Superior Court State of California County of Marin 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, California SO LET IT BE KNOWN THAT I, MITCHELL P. MODELESKI, do hereby execute and submit the following AFFIDAVIT in support of the above named action: Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 1 of 14 AFFIDAVIT OF MITCHELL P. MODELESKI CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC) ) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed COUNTY OF MARIN ) I, MITCHELL P. MODELESKI, being a Sovereign Free Man, of sound mind and body, do affirm as follows: 1. In the Spring of 1990, writer Kirby Ferris published a series of three columns in the Coastal Post, a weekly Marin County newspaper. These columns challenged the ratification of the so-called 16th Amendment, the "income tax" amendment, in the Constitution of the United States. 2. These three columns were entitled "Terminate the IRS", dated March 19, 1990; "Congresswoman Hides From IRS Fraud", dated April 30, 1990; and "Congresswoman Ducks IRS Fraud Probe", dated May 7, 1990. I incorporate true and correct copies of those three columns by reference and make them an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibits B-1, B-2, and B-3). 3. At least two local friends and neighbors asked me for my opinion of these columns, because they knew I had a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree in Political Science from UCLA and a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Public Administration from the University of California at Irvine. My answer to them was always the same: "If there is a problem with the 16th Amendment, Congress will just fix it." 4. In late May of the year 1990, I was having breakfast with a political activist and Vietnam War veteran by the name of Mike Taylor. Mike asked me, "What do you think of Kirby's columns on income tax?" I answered, "Congress will just fix it, if there really is a problem with the 16th Amendment." Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 2 of 14 5. Mike Taylor responded immediately with the question: "OK. You're so smart. How is Congress going to fix it?" I answered, "They'll pass a law. How else do you think they would fix it?" Mike then asked, "Are you telling me that Congress can amend the Constitution by passing a law? Is that what you're telling me?" 6. At that moment I hesitated, because Mike Taylor had shown me an error in my logic. Realizing my error, I retreated by admitting that two-thirds of the States were required to amend the Constitution, and that Congress alone did not have the power to do so. Mike completed this segment of our conversation with the statement: "It takes three-fourths of the States to amend the Constitution, Mitch, not two-thirds." 7. On June 1, 1990, I dispatched a purchase order for my own copy of the book entitled The Law That Never Was, volume one, to one of the co-authors, M. J. "Red" Beckman in Billings, Montana, doing business as "Common Sense Press". As soon as it arrived, I read the entire book from cover to cover in the space of 72 hours. I incorporate a true and correct copy of that purchase order by reference and make it a part of this Affidavit (Exhibit C). Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 3 of 14 8. After reading The Law That Never Was, volume one, I contacted author Kirby Ferris and explained that I needed more evidence before I could commit myself to doing anything more about this problem. I invited Kirby to my home for coffee, and together we identified the seven (7) States with the most serious ratification problems. In addition to the six (6) States listed in a federal government (GPO) publication as having rejected the so-called 16th Amendment, this exercise identified a total of thirteen (13) States which failed to ratify the amendment. Thirteen was the minimum number necessary to defeat the proposed amendment. I incorporate The Law That Never Was, volumes one and two, by reference and make them an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibits D-1 and D-2). 9. Kirby Ferris then informed me that he contacted M. J. "Red" Beckman and requested photocopies of key documents from the seven States which he and I had identified in our meeting. Within two weeks, a large shipping box was waiting for me at my front door when I arrived home from work. I stayed up late that evening, poring through several hundred photocopies of State- certified documents. These documents convinced me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there was indeed a very serious problem with the ratification of the so-called 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 10. On my birthday, June 21, 1990, I had lunch in San Francisco with my personal attorney to discuss these findings. He currently wishes to remain anonymous, and has withdrawn from any participation in this case. He cautioned me that government officials did not always obey the law and that I could face official retaliation for becoming politically active. Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 4 of 14 11. I authored and purchased a full-page advertisement for the August 9, 1990 issue of the Coastal Post. Among other things, this advertisement announced a community meeting to which I had been invited by Barbara Boxer. This meeting was scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 22, 1990, in the Dance Palace, 503 "B" Street, Point Reyes Station, California. I incorporate a newsprint original of that advertisement by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit E). 12. I attended this meeting, dressed in full suit and tie. I stood in the back of the room, waiting for an opportunity to speak. When the opportunity arrived, I addressed Barbara Boxer as follows: 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? [emphasis added] Although I am normally comfortable and capable when speaking to large groups, this time I was very nervous (my knees were shaking), and I did not remember everything that Barbara Boxer said in response to my statement. However, I do recall that she did say she was in favor of federal income taxes. Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 5 of 14 13. At that moment, I was somewhat relieved when Kirby Ferris came to my side and I now remember his exact words. He addressed Barbara Boxer as follows: "All we are asking, Barbara, is that you look at the evidence. Will you please just look at the evidence?" To this question, Barbara Boxer responded by saying, "Yes, I will look at the evidence." 14. On August 23, 1990, I signed a letter to the editor of the Point Reyes Light, discussing the evidence against the so-called 16th Amendment and expressing thanks to Barbara Boxer for her evident "willingness to keep an open mind and to seek the truth in this matter". This letter was published in a subsequent issue of the Point Reyes Light. I incorporate a true and correct copy of that letter by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit F). 15. On August 27, 1990, the Point Reyes Light published a front-page article about Barbara Boxer's community meeting, with a photograph of Barbara Boxer, also on the front page. This article was written by "News Staff" reporter Misha Myers. My formal presentation to Barbara Boxer was reported by Misha Myers as follows in this front-page article: She [Barbara Boxer] proposed a surtax on "the millionaires and decamillionaires" made rich by Reaganomics, to pay the debt created by his military buildup and cutting their taxes. This brought a loaded question as to whether she believes income taxes are constitutionally legal, by a contingent which claimed to have proof that the 16th Amendment (income taxes) was never ratified. She danced around this issue .... [from Point Reyes Light, Vol. 15, No. 34, August 27, 1990] [pages 1 and 16, emphasis added] I incorporate a true and correct copy of that front-page article by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit G). Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 6 of 14 16. Immediately after Barbara Boxer's community meeting, it is my firm recollection that Kirby Ferris attempted to schedule a meeting with the help of Barbara Boxer's staff, in order to present the material evidence formally to her. Kirby Ferris told me afterwards that Jackie Denevers, Barbara Boxer's staff member in San Rafael, had by telephone refused to schedule a meeting, and that Jackie Denevers denied that Barbara Boxer had ever agreed to examine the evidence. 17. Between August 22, 1990 and December 24, 1990, I had absolutely no contact with Barbara Boxer, or with any member of her staff, concerning her spoken promise to examine the material evidence in question. I decided to take action. Pursuant to the First Amendment's authority to petition government for a redress of grievances, I prepared a 21-page petition (the first petition) and sent it via Registered U.S. Mail addressed to "Rep. Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives, United States Congress, Washington, D.C. 20515", return receipt requested. I also sent a second copy of this petition via First Class U.S. Mail addressed to her San Rafael Office. I incorporate a true and correct copy of that first petition by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit H). Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 7 of 14 18. By March 11, 1991, I had still received absolutely no response from Barbara Boxer or from any member of her staff. Accordingly, on that day, I completed a government form entitled "Request for Investigation by the Marin County Grand Jury" and sent it via first class U.S. Mail addressed to "Foreman, Marin County Grand Jury, Hall of Justice, Civic Center, San Rafael, CA 94903". In my cover letter to the Grand Jury Foreman, I made formal requests for the Marin County Grand Jury: (1) to investigate possible obstruction of justice and misprision of felony by Barbara Boxer for her failure, against a spoken promise before hundreds of witnesses at Point 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 Barbara 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, and (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. I incorporate a true and correct copy of that "Request for Investigation by the Marin County Grand Jury" by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit I). 19. Marin County Grand Jury Foreperson Lowell A. Airola responded to me immediately with a letter dated March 13, 1991. In this letter, he explained that the Grand Jury declined to proceed with an investigation of the subject matter in question. He explained as follows: In the panel's opinion that subject matter was not within its jurisdiction. We serve in a watchdog manner over local public departments and agencies. As a result of Proposition 115 this Grand Jury is apparently relegated to civil matters, whereas indictment and accusation cases are to be handled by a special criminal Grand Jury. I incorporate a true and correct copy of that Foreperson's letter to me by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit J). Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 8 of 14 20. Barbara Boxer finally responded to me in a written letter dated March 27, 1991. In this letter, she explained that she had referred my letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, "which has jurisdiction over tax law, for comments from that committee's counsel." She also promised to forward that committee's response to me as soon as she received it. "His views on the matter are crucial," she wrote. I incorporate a true and correct copy of Barbara Boxer's letter to me of March 27, 1991 by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit K). 21. I responded to Barbara Boxer's letter of March 27, 1991 by sending a second petition, dated April 15, 1991, with an enclosure, via Certified U.S. Mail addressed to "Rep. Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives, United States Congress, Washington, D.C. 20515". The enclosure was a copy of the pamphlet entitled "Ratification of the Income Tax Amendment: Has the Federal Government Defrauded the American People? A Response to the Ripy Report", dated September 15, 1986 and published by Constitutional Research Associates, Post Office Box 550, South Holland, Illinois. I incorporate true and correct copies of that second petition, and of its enclosure, by reference and make them an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit L). Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 9 of 14 22. Within a week after sending my second petition to Barbara Boxer, I received a letter from her, dated April 12, 1991. Evidently, her April 12 letter to me, and my April 15 petition to her, did cross in the mail. Her April 12 letter to me was accompanied by a copy of Chairman Dan Rostenkowski's letter to her, dated April 8, 1991, and a copy of a document subset entitled "Part IX. Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax [CRS Report for Congress, 89-623 A, November 17, 1989]". I incorporate true and correct copies of those letters, and a copy of "Part IX", by reference and make them an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit M). 23. On May 3, 1991 I prepared a third petition, 22 pages in length, and sent it via Registered U.S. Mail addressed to "Rep. Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives, United States Congress, Washington, D.C. 20515", with a copy to Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. In this third petition, among other things, I placed Barbara Boxer on formal notice that at no time between August 22, 1990 and May 3, 1991 had she demonstrated to me that she had, in fact, examined any of the material evidence against the ratification of the 16th Amendment. I incorporate a true and correct copy of that third petition by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit N). 24. On May 22, 1991, I prepared a fourth petition and sent it via Registered U.S. Mail addressed to "Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515". In this fourth petition, I enclosed copies and incorporated, by reference, all three petitions previously served on Barbara Boxer. In this fourth petition, I demanded to know if he was, or was not, at the end of the chain of administrative due process in this matter, as follows: Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 10 of 14 ... 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 the chain of administrative due process. [emphasis added] I incorporate a true and correct copy of that fourth petition to Dan Rostenkowski by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit O). 25. At no time between May 22, 1991 and now have I heard anything whatsoever from either Barbara Boxer or her staff, or from Dan Rostenkowski or his staff, concerning the so-called 16th Amendment. 26. In order to protect myself from possible retaliation by the federal government for my political activism, and in order to substantiate my lawful position in this matter, I conducted the legal research necessary to draft two additional formal Affidavits. These formal Affidavits are titled "NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND PUBLIC NOTICE REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT" and "FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT". On March 9, 1992, I executed and served notarized originals of both of those Affidavits via Certified U.S. Mail on Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives; Nicholas Brady, Secretary of the Treasury; March Fong Eu, California Secretary of State; John Seymour and Alan Cranston, United States Senators. I incorporate true and correct copies of both of those Affidavits by reference and make them a part of this Affidavit (Exhibits P-1 and P-2). Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 11 of 14 27. Specifically, in the Affidavit entitled NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND PUBLIC NOTICE REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT, I stated "that the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified nor could it have been enacted into positive law because the requisite number of States (i.e., 36) did not meet the lawful requirements for amending the Constitution; and that a mass of incontrovertible material evidence available since the year 1985 proves 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" (see Exhibit P-1, paragraph 12, line 48). To date, I have received absolutely no response from Barbara Boxer to either of those two Affidavits. 28. As a result of continuing discoveries of further fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, duress, menace, coercion and mistakes by employees and officials of the federal government, and in order to further substantiate my lawful position in this matter, I conducted the research necessary to draft one additional formal Affidavit. That formal Affidavit is entitled "NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT AND REVOCATION OF POWER ASSEVERATION". On March 9, 1992, I executed and served notarized originals of that REVOCATION AND ASSEVERATION via Certified U.S. Mail addressed to the "Registry of Vital Records, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 150 Tremont Street, Room B-3, Boston, Massachusetts, Postal Zone 02111", and also the "Social Security Administration, Office of the Commissioner, 6301 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland, Postal Zone 21235". I hereby incorporate a true and correct copy of that REVOCATION AND ASSEVERATION by reference and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit Q). Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 12 of 14 29. On July 4, 1992, I authored and caused to be published the second edition of the book entitled The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue. Appendix J of this book contains true and correct copies of the four (4) petitions mentioned above, with the following changes: each ZIP code was listed as a "Postal Zone"; "CA" was changed to "California" in all addresses; and the text was re-formatted to fit specific layout requirements. I incorporate a copy of The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue and make it an explicit part of this Affidavit (Exhibit R). Further This Affiant saith not. Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this ________________ day of ___________________________, 1992 Anno Domini. I now affix my own signature to all of the above affirmations WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE: _________________________________________________________________ Mitchell P. Modeleski, Sovereign, by special Appearance, proceeding Sui Juris, in His Own Stead, with Assistance Special, "Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights. Mitchell P. Modeleski c/o General Delivery San Rafael, California Republic Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 13 of 14 Acknowledgement CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC ) ) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed MARIN COUNTY ) On this ______ day of ______________________________, 1992, Mitchell P. Modeleski did personally appear before me, and is known to be the one described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed as a Citizen/Sovereign in this above named said State of the Union. Purpose of notary public is for identification only, and not for granting jurisdiction to any government agency. _____________________________________ Notary Public Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: Page 14 of 14 # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
People v. Boxer : Superior Court