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