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,      )
                             )
MITCHELL P. MODELESKI,       )              PETITION
Petitioner At Law            )  for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
                             )      to compel the performance
        v.                   )          of a duty owed to
                             )             Petitioner
BARBARA BOXER,               )
Respondent at Law            )
                             )
                             )
_____________________________)


TO:  Rep. Barbara Boxer
     U.S. Senator-elect
     3301 Kerner Boulevard
     San Rafael, California Republic


TO:  Rep. Barbara Boxer
     U.S. Senator-elect
     307 Cannon Building
     Washington, District of Columbia


                       (see next page for)
                       (Table of Contents)


                             #  #  #


                        Table of Contents

Contents                                                    Pages

ORDER TO ISSUE a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
 to compel the performance of a duty owed to Petitioner         2

PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
 to compel the performance of a duty owed to Petitioner         2

NOTICE OF PETITION for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
 to compel the performance of a duty owed to Petitioner         3

PETITION for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
 to compel the performance of a duty owed to Petitioner        11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Randy Hillner
 (acknowledgement refused by Mr. Sam T. Chapman)                1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL by Randy Hillner                 1

RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL                                      1

MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities
 in support of Supreme Court Jurisdiction                      10

AFFIDAVIT of Petitioner in Support of Petition
 for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
 to compel the performance of a duty owed to Petitioner        14

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM J. BENSON                                  4

COPY CERTIFICATION BY DOCUMENT OWNER                            1

AFFIDAVIT OF GODFREY LEHMAN with attachments                    8

COPY CERTIFICATION BY DOCUMENT OWNER                            1

AFFIDAVIT OF GREGORY B. ALEXANDER                               2

COPY CERTIFICATION BY DOCUMENT OWNER                            1

AFFIDAVIT OF KIRBY FERRIS with attachments                     19

COPY CERTIFICATION BY DOCUMENT OWNER                            1

NOTICE OF ALIAS and Common Abbreviation of Petitioner's Name    1

REQUEST for permissive judicial notice of matters
 listed in Section 452 of the California Evidence Code          2

LIST OF EXHIBITS in support of Petitioner's Affidavit           3


                             #  #  #


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,      )
                             )
MITCHELL P. MODELESKI,       )              PETITION
Petitioner At Law            )  for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus
                             )      to compel the performance
        v.                   )          of a duty owed to
                             )             Petitioner
BARBARA BOXER,               )
Respondent at Law            )
                             )
                             )
_____________________________)


TO:  Rep. Barbara Boxer
     U.S. Senator-elect
     3301 Kerner Boulevard
     San Rafael, California Republic


TO:  Rep. Barbara Boxer
     U.S. Senator-elect
     307 Cannon Building
     Washington, District of Columbia


     Jurisdiction and  venue are  grounded by virtue of CCP 1085,

and Article  6, Section 10 of the California Constitution (1879),

to wit:   "The  Supreme  Court  [has]  original  jurisdiction  in

proceedings for  extraordinary relief  in the nature of mandamus,

certiorari, and prohibition." [emphasis added]


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 1 of 11


     The Supreme  Court will  exercise original  jurisdiction  in

mandamus in  appropriate cases  when the  issues presented are of

great public  importance and must be resolved promptly.  If these

criteria are satisfied, the existence of an alternative appellate

remedy will  not preclude  this  court's  original  jurisdiction.

Clean Air  Constituency v.  California State Air Resources Board,

523 P.2d 617, 620.


     Great Public Importance

     The preponderance  of material  evidence  now  proves  that,

since 1913,  untold millions  of California  State Citizens  were

induced to  pay income  taxes under  a government authority which

simply did  not exist.  Repeated statements by federal government

officials have  cited  the  so-called  16th  Amendment  as  their

general authority  to impose  taxes on the incomes of individuals

and corporations.   The California State individual income tax is

predicated upon the existence of federal income tax liabilities.


     Prompt Resolution Required

     Barbara Boxer  was recently  elected to  the  United  States

Senate by the People of California.  In January of 1993, she will

once again be required to take a solemn oath to uphold and defend

the United  States Constitution against all enemies, both foreign

and domestic.   It is quite simply impossible for the Respondent,

or any  other public  officials in  America for  that matter,  to

perform a  solemn duty to support the United States Constitution,

if the  weight of  material evidence  should prove that the exact

provisions of that Constitution are still in doubt.


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 2 of 11


                       STATEMENT OF FACTS

     Respondent is  currently a  public official  serving in  the

House of  Representatives, in  the Congress of the United States,

Washington, D.C.,  and this  November was  elected  to  represent

California in the United States Senate.

     By virtue  of this  public office, Respondent now represents

the People  of the  Sixth (6th)  Congressional  District  in  the

California Republic.

     The 6th  Congressional  District  covers  Marin  and  Sonoma

Counties, in the California Republic.

     In order  to enjoy  an office of honor and public trust, and

in order to receive any pay for services rendered in this office,

Respondent was required by law to complete and sign the following

"Oath of Office":

     I, Barbara  Boxer, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
     support and  defend the  Constitution of  the United  States
     against all enemies, foreign and domestic;  that I will bear
     true faith  and allegiance  to the  same;   that I take this
     obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
     of evasion;   and  that I will well and faithfully discharge
     the duties  of the  office on which I am about to enter.  So
     help me God.


     _____________________   ____________________________________
     (Date)                  (Signature)

             [from U.S. House of Representatives, Oath of Office]
             ["Payroll and Benefits Information" (see Exhibit A)]


     Respondent did  sign and date this same "Oath of Office", as

required by  law, and  did file  same with the Office of Finance,

263  Cannon   House  Office  Building,  Washington,  District  of

Columbia, USPS Postal Zone 20515.


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 3 of 11


     Having signed  this "Oath of Office", Respondent did thereby

enter a  written contract  to perform certain contractual duties,

first  and  foremost  among  which  is  to support and defend the

Constitution of the United States.

     On the  evening of August 22, 1990, at a scheduled community

meeting sponsored  by Respondent in a building known as the Dance

Palace in  Point Reyes  Station, California  Republic, Petitioner

presented Respondent  with substantive  evidence  which  supports

Petitioner's allegation  that the so-called 16th Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States was never lawfully ratified.

     At  this   same  community   meeting,  Petitioner  presented

Respondent with  substantive evidence which supports Petitioner's

allegation that  a massive  fiscal fraud  has been perpetrated by

the  federal   government  upon  the  People  of  the  California

Republic, a  massive fiscal fraud that began in the year 1913 and

continues until today.

     At  this  same  community  meeting,  Petitioner's  colleague

publicly requested  Respondent to  examine the  material evidence

which supports  Petitioner's allegations  that the so-called 16th

Amendment was  never lawfully  ratified and that a massive fiscal

fraud has  been perpetrated  upon the  People of  the  California

Republic as a result.

     In front  of a  large audience,  with  standing  room  only,

estimated by  Petitioner to  be approximately 400 people present,

Respondent did  publicly agree  to examine  the material evidence

which supports  Petitioner's allegation  that the  so-called 16th

Amendment was never lawfully ratified.


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 4 of 11


     By reason  of this  spoken agreement,  Respondent did  enter

into a  verbal  contract  binding  her  specific  performance  to

examine  the   material  evidence   which  supports  Petitioner's

allegation that  the so-called  16th Amendment was never lawfully

ratified.

     After receipt of three written petitions filed by Petitioner

under authority of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States  and delivered  via Registered U.S. Mail, and after

receipt of  related affidavits signed and delivered by Petitioner

via Certified  U.S. Mail, Respondent has fallen completely silent

in the matter of the so-called 16th Amendment.

     At no  time between  August 22,  1990 and now has Respondent

demonstrated to  Petitioner that  Respondent has  examined any of

the material evidence which impugns the so-called 16th Amendment.

     Respondent has  fallen silent  even though,  and in spite of

the fact that, there was a legal and moral duty for Respondent to

act.

     Respondent's silence  has induced Petitioner to believe that

the available material evidence constitutes conclusive proof that

the so-called 16th Amendment was never ratified.

     Respondent's silence has induced Petitioner to act as if the

so-called 16th  Amendment never  became a  law and  was as much a

nullity  as  if  it  had  been  the  act  or  declaration  of  an

unauthorized assemblage of individuals.

     Petitioner filed  a formal  request for  an investigation by

the Marin County Grand Jury, which declined to investigate.


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 5 of 11


     Petitioner has  continued to  investigate  the  matter  with

extraordinary diligence  and  to  seek  further  assistance  from

Representative Dan  Rostenkowski, Chairman, Committee on Ways and

Means,  House   of  Representatives,   Washington,  District   of

Columbia.  Mr. Rostenkowski also fell silent.

     Petitioner has  filed formal  notices of fraud and deception

on all  50 Governors  of the  Sovereign States  of the  Union.  A

total of 42 Governors fell silent.

     Petitioner has  filed related  affidavits and  other  formal

documents with  the Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  Washington,

District of  Columbia;   the Commissioner  of Social  Security in

Baltimore, Maryland;   the Department of Vital Records in Boston,

Massachusetts;   the California Secretary of State in Sacramento,

California;    United  States  Senators  John  Seymour  and  Alan

Cranston in  Washington,  District  of  Columbia;    and  unnamed

officials of the Internal Revenue Service Center in Ogden, Utah.

     Petitioner's own  investigation of  the related federal case

law shows that federal courts do consider the failed ratification

of the so-called 16th Amendment to be a "political" question.  In

contrast, other  members of  the House  and  Senate  have  signed

letters to  constituents which  state that  the matter  should be

decided by the federal courts.  This is a vicious circle, without

any plain,  speedy and  adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

law.

     Finally, Petitioner's  request to  the Marin County Superior

Court for  a Peremptory  Writ  of  Mandamus  was  denied  by  the

Honorable Gary W. Thomas on August 17, 1992 (see attached).


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 6 of 11


     Petitioner now  feels that  he has made a good faith attempt

to exhaust  his administrative  remedies in this matter, and that

he has,  in fact,  exhausted  all  ordinary  remedies  heretofore

available to him.  There is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy,

in the ordinary course of law, now left open to Petitioner.


                               LAW

     Respondent's duty  to support the Constitution of the United

States is a lawful prerequisite to serving as an official elected

to the  Senate and  the House  of Representatives.   It is also a

prerequisite to  receiving pay  for serving  as a  Member of  the

Senate and  as a  Member of  the House  of Representatives.  This

duty is clearly stated in Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution

of the United States, as follows:

     The Senators  and Representatives  before mentioned, and the
     Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
     and judicial  Officers, both of the United States and of the
     several States,  shall be  bound by  Oath or Affirmation, to
     support this Constitution ....

                [United States Constitution, Article 6, Clause 3]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     This duty  is also  specified in  the federal  statute which

defines the exact wording of the Oath of Office, as follows:

     An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to
     an office  of honor  or  profit  in  the  civil  service  or
     uniformed services,  shall take the following oath:  "I, AB,
     do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
     the Constitution  of the  United States against all enemies,
     foreign and  domestic;   that I  will bear  true  faith  and
     allegiance to the same;  that I take this obligation freely,
     without any  mental reservation  or purpose of evasion;  and
     that I  will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
     office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

                  [5 U.S.C. 3331, emphasis added (see Exhibit A)]


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 7 of 11


     The exact same wording of the Oath of Office is found on the

form entitled "Oath of Office, Payroll and Benefits Information",

which must be signed before an elected Representative can receive

pay from  the Office  of Finance  in the House of Representatives

(see Exhibit A).

     A voluntary  acceptance of  the benefits of a transaction is

equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising therefrom,

so far  as the  facts are  known, or  ought to  be known,  to the

person accepting, per CCC 1589.

     An express  contract is one the terms of which are stated in

words, per  CCC 1620.   An  implied contract is one the existence

and terms of which are manifested by conduct, per CCC 1621.

     Respondent has  a duty, even without any verbal contract, to

abstain from  injuring the  person or  property  of  another,  or

infringing upon any of his fundamental rights, per CCC 1708.

     Having made  an oral  promise which  constitutes  a  binding

contract, Respondent  also has  a legal obligation to perform all

terms and  conditions specified  in that contract.  All contracts

may be  oral, except such as are specially required by statute to

be in writing, per CCC 1622.

     An obligation  arises either  from:  (1) the contract of the

parties, or  (2) the operation of law, per CCC 1428.  The present

action involves  both an  oral contract  by Respondent,  and  the

operation of  laws  as  specified  herein,  which  laws  required

Respondent to sign and execute a specific written contract and to

perform the specific duties listed in said contract.


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 8 of 11


     An obligation  is a legal duty, per CCC 1427.  An obligation

is extinguished  only by  full performance  by Respondent  of all

terms and conditions thereof, per CCC 1473.

     Service of  this Writ may be expressly ordered by any means,

by order  of this  Court, under  authority of  CCP 1096.  Duty to

issue the Writ is mandatory, by virtue of CCP 1086.

     Other relevant authorities follow:

     One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him
     to alter  his position  to his injury or risk, is liable for
     any damages which he thereby suffers.

                                       [CCC 1709, emphasis added]


     A deceit, within the meaning of [CCC 1709 supra], is either:

     ... (3)  the suppression  of a  fact, by one who is bound to
     disclose it,  or who  gives information of other facts which
     are likely  to mislead  for want  of communication  of  that
     fact;   or, (4)  a promise,  made without  any intention  of
     performing it.
                                       [CCC 1710, emphasis added]


     Silence can  only be  equated with  fraud where  there is  a
     legal or  moral duty  to speak  or  where  an  inquiry  left
     unanswered would be intentionally misleading.

         [U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977) emphasis added]
            [quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]


     Silence is  a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied
     representation of  the existence  of the  state of  facts in
     question, and  the estoppel  is  accordingly  a  species  of
     estoppel by  misrepresentation. [cite omitted]  When silence
     is of  such a character and under such circumstances that it
     would become  a fraud  upon the  other party  to permit  the
     party who  has kept  silent to  deny what  his  silence  has
     induced the  other to  believe and act upon, it will operate
     as an estoppel.
                             [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 9 of 11


     A practice  condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by
     historical acceptance and present convenience.

                    [U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (1983)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     It is  obviously correct  that no  one acquires  a vested or
     protected right  in violation  of the  Constitution by  long
     use, even  when that span of time covers our entire national
     existence and indeed predates it.

                       [Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City,]
                       [397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970), emphasis added]


                      STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

     Respondent owed  a duty to Petitioner.  This duty was and is

the property  of Petitioner,  and this  property  was  unlawfully

withheld by Respondent.


                         REMEDY DEMANDED

     I pray this Honorable Supreme Court to order:


     (1)  that   a  Writ   of  Mandamus  issue  upon  Respondent,

compelling her  At Law  to witness,  under direct  supervision of

this Honorable Court, any and all material evidence which impugns

the  ratification   of  the   so-called  16th  Amendment  to  the

Constitution of the United States, and


     (2) that  Petitioner be  awarded his costs and disbursements

in this action.


Presented this twentieth day of November, 1992 Anno Domini.


_________________________________________
Mitchell P. Modeleski, Sui Juris
Sovereign Petitioner At Law

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 10 of 11


Acknowledgement

CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC       )
                                )   Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
MARIN COUNTY                    )


     On this  twentieth (20th) day of November, 1992 Anno Domini,

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


            Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
                          Page 11 of 11


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

People v. Boxer