Mitchell P. Modeleski, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
San Rafael, California state
In His Own Stead
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE OF THE CALIFORNIA ) Number S-030016
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 Supreme Court
State of California
303 Second Street, South Tower
San Francisco, 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
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 2 of 14
columns on income tax?" I answered, "Congress will just fix it,
if there really is a problem with the 16th Amendment."
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).
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
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 3 of 14
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.
11. I authored and purchased a full-page advertisement for
the August 9, 1990 issue of the Coastal Post. Among other
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 4 of 14
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]
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 6 of 14
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).
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).
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
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 7 of 14
"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.
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 8 of 14
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).
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).
22. Within a week after sending my second petition to
Barbara Boxer, I received a letter from her, dated April 12,
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 9 of 14
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
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 10 of 14
end of the chain of administrative due process in this matter, as
follows:
... 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,
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 11 of 14
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).
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
Affidavit of Mitchell P. Modeleski: page 12 of 14
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).
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 Repubic
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