Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
c/o General Delivery
Hastings [zip code exempt]
NEBRASKA STATE

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved
without prejudice





                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                      DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], )  Case No. 4:CV96-3275
                                )
          Plaintiff [sic],      )  NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
                                )  MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
     v.                         )
                                )  Rule 201(d),
VANCE E. KNUDSON [sic],         )  Federal Rules of Evidence;
                                )  Full Faith and Credit Clause
          Defendant [sic].      )
________________________________)


COMES NOW Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Nebraska state,

expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"),

and  Defendant   in  the   above  entitled   matter  (hereinafter

"Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties,

and to  demand mandatory judicial notice by this honorable Court,

pursuant to  Rule 201(d)  of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to

the Full  Faith and  Credit Clause  in the  Constitution for  the

United States of America, as lawfully amended, of Appendix J from

the book  entitled  "The  Federal  Zone:  Cracking  the  Code  of

Internal Revenue,"  7th  ed.,  which  Appendix  is  attached  and

incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 1 of 57


                           Appendix J

                      Petitions to Congress


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 2 of 57


                   Text of Prepared Statement
                 Read Aloud at Community Meeting
            Sponsored by Representative Barbara Boxer

                               by

                    John E. Trumane, Founder
                 Account for Better Citizenship

                         August 22, 1990

                          Dance Palace
                  Pt. Reyes Station, California


Good Evening,  Representative Boxer.  My name is John E. Trumane.
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?


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 3 of 57


MEMO

TO:       Friends, Neighbors, Colleagues
          and all interested parties

FROM:     John E. Trumane, Founder
          Account for Better Citizenship

DATE:     January 1, 1991

SUBJECT:  Enclosed Letter to Rep. Barbara Boxer


I am writing to share with you a copy of my recent long letter to
Congresswoman Barbara Boxer, my representative in the Congress of
the United  States.  If you will please find the time to read the
entire letter,  I am  confident you  will agree that it documents
numerous reasons  for coming  to the  following conclusions about
our federal government:

     1.   Wages are not taxable income, as the term is defined by
          several key  decisions of  the U.S.  Supreme Court that
          remain in force today.

     2.   The  U.S.  Constitution  authorizes  Congress  to  levy
          "direct taxes"  on private  property, but only if those
          taxes are apportioned across the 50 States.

     3.   The IRS  now enforces  the collection of "income taxes"
          as direct  taxes without  apportionment, and  cites the
          16th Amendment for its authority to do so.

     4.   The 16th  Amendment, the  "income tax"  amendment,  was
          never lawfully  ratified by the required 36 States, but
          was declared ratified by the U.S. Secretary of State.

     5.   The 16th  Amendment could never have done away with the
          apportionment rule  for any  direct taxes  if it  never
          became a law in the first place.


Please feel  free to  duplicate this memo and the attached letter
to Representative Barbara Boxer, in any quantity you wish.

If you  wish to  write to me, please use the address found on the
first page of my letter to Rep. Boxer.

Thank you for your consideration.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 4 of 57


REGISTERED U.S. MAIL:                   c/o General Delivery
Return Receipt Requested                San Rafael, California
                                        Postal Zone 94903/tdc

                                        December 24, 1990

Rep. Barbara Boxer
House of Representatives
United States Congress
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Boxer:

With this  letter, I formally petition you for redress of a major
legal grievance  which I  now have with the federal government of
the United  States of  America.  At your community meeting in Pt.
Reyes Station last fall, you agreed publicly, in front of several
hundred witnesses,  to examine  the  evidence  against  the  16th
Amendment to  the U.S. Constitution.  Since I have not heard from
your office  on this  matter, I  am writing this letter to remind
you of  your promise,  and to  remind you  also of  your oath  of
office, by  which you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution
of the United States of America, so help you God.

I do  understand how the crisis in Iraq has succeeded in changing
your priorities  and   distracting  you,  your  staff,  and  your
colleagues from  other pressing  national issues.  At your recent
community meeting  at the  College of  Marin, you  chose to limit
public discussion  to the reasons for and against a Congressional
declaration of  war against  Iraq.   I must  admit, to the extent
President  Bush  sought  to  preempt  the  front  page  with  his
offensive  military   maneuvers,  he  has  been  almost  entirely
successful in  that endeavor.   Barbara, you must understand that
the problems with the 16th Amendment, and they are many, will not
go away simply because the President, the Courts, or the Congress
wish them away.

A terribly  confusing and fearful situation has arisen out of the
fact that  the Supreme  Court has,  on several occasions, clearly
defined  what   constitutes  "taxable  income",  whereas  Federal
District and  Appellate Courts  have, for  at least  the last ten
years, chosen  to ignore the relevant Supreme Court decisions and
to include  wages in  their definition  of taxable  income.  As a
result of  decisions by  these lower  courts,  people  have  been
imprisoned and  their homes  and other  assets have been forcibly
taken from  them.  Moreover, the Federal courts have consistently
refused to  admit into evidence any of the 17,000 State-certified
documents which have been assembled against the 16th Amendment.

These same  lower courts  cite the  case of  Brushaber  v.  Union
Pacific Railroad,  among others,  in support  of their conclusion
that the  16th Amendment  has been declared constitutional by the
U.S. Supreme Court.  To add to the confusion, federal tax experts
like Irwin  Schiff and  Otto Skinner cite this same Supreme Court
in support  of their  conclusion that  the 16th Amendment did not
change any  of the  taxing  powers  already  found  in  the  U.S.
Constitution.  For example, Schiff has written the following:


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 5 of 57


     Another fallacy  promoted by  the government  and the  legal
     establishment is  that the  Sixteenth Amendment  amended the
     Constitution.     The  Brushaber   Court,  however,  clearly
     explained that,  in reality, the Sixteenth Amendment did not
     alter the taxing clauses of the Constitution. ...

     Here the  Court pointed  out that  any belief  that the 16th
     Amendment gave  the government  a new,  direct taxing  power
     (not  limited   by  either  apportionment  or  the  rule  of
     uniformity) would  "cause one  provision of the Constitution
     to destroy  another", and  "if acceded  to ...  would create
     radical  and   destructive  changes  in  our  constitutional
     system."
                        [The Great Income Tax Hoax, Hamden, 1984]
                   [Freedom Books, pages 182-183, emphasis added]


Author Otto  Skinner  relies,  in  part,  on  the  Supreme  Court
decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company which reads:

     ... the  provisions of  the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no
     new power  of taxation[,] but simply prohibited the previous
     complete and  plenary power  of income taxation[,] possessed
     by Congress  from the  beginning[,] from  being taken out of
     the category  of indirect taxation[,] to which it inherently
     belonged[,] and  being placed  in  the  category  of  direct
     taxation subject to apportionment.

        [quoted in The Best Kept Secret, San Pedro, Calif., 1986]
         [Otto U. Skinner, emphasis and commas added for clarify]


Contrast these  cases with  the following  statement published in
the Federal  Register, Vol.  39, No.  62, March  29, 1974, in the
section entitled  "Department of  the Treasury,  Internal Revenue
Service, Organization and Functions", which reads as follows:

     (2)   Since 1862, the Internal Revenue Service has undergone
     a period  of  steady  growth  as  the  means  for  financing
     Government operations  shifted from  the levying  of  import
     duties  to   internal  taxation.    Its  expansion  received
     considerable impetus  in 1913  with the  ratification of the
     Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution under which Congress
     received constitutional  authority  to  levy  taxes  on  the
     income of individuals and corporations.
                                                 [emphasis added]


I have  several serious  problems with  this statement, which was
published  in  the  Federal  Register  by  Donald  C.  Alexander,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue at that time.  First of all, the
IRS now  defines "income"  to include  wages.   Using  the  above
quote, the IRS cites the 16th Amendment for its authority to levy
taxes on  wages.   Nevertheless, this definition of income flatly
contradicts the definition of income found in several key Supreme
Court decisions.   Specifically,  the Brushaber  court wrote  the
following in  their decision  to uphold  the constitutionality of
the 16th Amendment:


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 6 of 57


     Moreover in  addition the conclusions reached in the Pollock
     Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes
     generically and  necessarily came within the class of direct
     taxes on  property, but on the contrary, recognized the fact
     that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled
     to be enforced as such ....

                [Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1]
                                                 [emphasis added]


Can there  be any  doubt that taxes on wages are "direct taxes on
property"?   District and  Appellate courts have repeatedly sided
with the IRS by ruling that "income" is anything that "comes in".
In doing  so, these same courts flatly contradict earlier Supreme
Court decisions  on the  very same  subject.   Take the  case  of
Southern Pacific  Company v.  John Z.  Lowe, Jr.,  247 U.S.  330,
which decided as follows:

     We must  reject  in  this  case  ...  the  broad  contention
     submitted in  behalf of  the Government that all receipts --
     everything that  comes in   --  are income within the proper
     definition of "gross income" ....


Another Supreme  Court decision  which defined  what  constitutes
"taxable  income"  is  Emanuel  J.  Doyle  v.  Mitchell  Brothers
Company, 247  U.S. 179.   In  defining  "income",  this  decision
stated that:

     ... it  imports, as  used here,  something entirely distinct
     from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or
     as a  measure of the tax;  conveying rather the idea of gain
     or increase arising from corporate activities.


Another Supreme  Court case,  Stratton's Independence v. Howbert,
231 U.S.  406, issued yet another official definition of "income"
as follows:

     This court  had decided  in the Pollock Case that the income
     tax law  of 1894  amounted in  effect to  a direct  tax upon
     property, and  was invalid because not apportioned according
     to population  as prescribed  by the  Constitution  ...  for
     "income" may  be defined  as the  gain derived from capital,
     from labor, or from both combined ....


Without question,  the most  significant Supreme  Court  case  to
define "income"  was Mark  Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S.
189, commonly known as Eisner v. Macomber.  In the following long
passage, pay  particular attention  to the explicit intent of the
Supreme Court in wording its decision the way it did:

     In order,  therefore, that  the  clauses  cited  above  from
     Article I  of the  Constitution may  have proper  force  and
     effect ...  it becomes essential to distinguish between what
     is and what is not "income," as the term is there used;  and
     to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth
     and substance,  without regard  to form.  Congress cannot by
     any definition  it may  adopt conclude  the matter, since it
     cannot by  legislation alter  the Constitution,  from  which
     alone it  derives its  power to  legislate, and within whose
     limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

     ... Here  we have  the essential  matter   --   not  a  gain
     accruing to  capital, not  a growth or increment of value in
     the  investment;    but  a  gain,  a  profit,  something  of
     exchangeable value  proceeding from  the  property,  severed
     from the  capital however  invested or  employed, and coming
     in, being  "derived," that  is  received  or  drawn  by  the
     recipient (the  taxpayer) for  his separate use, benefit and
     disposal  --  that is income derived from property.  Nothing
     else answers the description.

     ... A  proper regard  for its  genesis, as  well as its very
     clear language,  requires also  that this  [16th]  Amendment
     shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal
     or modify,  except as applied to income, those provisions of
     the Constitution  that require an apportionment according to
     population for direct taxes upon property real and personal.
     This limitation  still  has  an  appropriate  and  important
     function, and  is  not  to  be  overridden  by  Congress  or
     disregarded by the courts.
                                                 [emphasis added]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 7 of 57


In another Supreme Court case, Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v.
Smietanka, 255  U.S. 509,  note in particular that the definition
of "income" was considered to be "definitely settled" as follows:

     ... with  the addition that it should include "profit gained
     through a sale or conversion of capital assets," there would
     seem to  be no room to doubt that the word must be given the
     same meaning  in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that
     was given  to it  in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that
     what that  meaning is  has now  become definitely settled by
     decisions of this court.

     In determining  the definition  of the  word  "income"  thus
     arrived at,  this court  has consistently  refused to  enter
     into the refinements of lexicographers or economists and has
     approved, in  the definitions quoted, what it believed to be
     the commonly  understood meaning of the term which must have
     been in  the minds  of the  people  when  they  adopted  the
     Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. ...

     Notwithstanding the  full argument heard in this case and in
     the series  of cases  now under  consideration, we  continue
     entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund
     here taxed  was the  amount realized  from the  sale of  the
     stock in  1917, less the capital investment as determined by
     the trustee  as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was
     a "gain  or profit"  "produced by"  or "derived  from"  that
     investment, and  that it  "proceeded," and  was "severed" or
     rendered severable,  from, by the sale for cash, and thereby
     became  that  "realized  gain"  which  has  been  repeatedly
     declared to  be taxable  income within  the meaning  of  the
     constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 8 of 57


Accordingly, after  reviewing  all  the  relevant  federal  court
decisions for  the past  80 years,  constitutional tax expert and
author  Jeffrey   A.  Dickstein  has  written  the  following  to
summarize his findings:

     Income has  been defined  by the United States Supreme Court
     to be a profit or gain derived from various sources, such as
     labor and capital.  A tax directly on the source is a direct
     tax, and  must still  be apportioned.   A  tax on the income
     derived from the source need not be apportioned.  Labor, the
     labor contract,  and the  right to  sell labor have all been
     held by  the Supreme  Court to  constitute  property.    The
     procedure to  determine if  there is a gain derived from the
     sale of  property has  been set  forth by Congress.  Gain is
     derived only  if one receives over and above the fair market
     value of  the cost  of the property.  These basic principles
     are simple  to state and simple to apply.  They also lead to
     one inescapable conclusion:

                 WAGES DO NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME.

     ... You  must be cautioned that not filing a return with the
     Internal Revenue  Service could  result in the imposition of
     civil  penalties  and/or  the  recommendation  for  criminal
     prosecution.   This illegal  conduct  on  the  part  of  our
     Executive Department  of government  is yet but another in a
     long line  of abuses, similar to those which resulted in the
     Declaration  of   Independence.     It  is   nonetheless  my
     contention that  provisions contained  in the  United States
     Constitution, together  with decisions  of the United States
     Supreme Court, fully support the legal conclusion that wages
     do not  constitute income as shown in previous chapters, and
     reinforce the  position that the Internal Revenue Service is
     violating the  law in  its administration  of  the  personal
     federal income  tax, with  the full  consent of  the federal
     judiciary.

                 [Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, Missoula]
             [Custom Prints, 1990, pages 277-280, emphasis added]


Return now  to  the  statement  by  IRS  Commissioner  Donald  C.
Alexander in  the Federal  Register in  1974.    Under  the  16th
Amendment, "Congress  received constitutional  authority to  levy
taxes on  the income  of individuals  and corporations."  Even if
the 16th Amendment had been properly ratified by three-fourths of
the 48  States in  1913, the Supreme Court has repeatedly defined
"taxable income"  to be  a "gain  or profit",  not wages  or fair
compensation for  labor.   The Supreme  Court has  never included
wages in  its several  definitions of "taxable income" nor in its
interpretations of the 16th Amendment.  If that had ever been the
intent of  the 16th  Amendment, or of the Framers of the original
Constitution, don't  you think  the Supreme Court would have said
so by  now?   The Supreme  Court  has  certainly  had  plenty  of
opportunities to  do so,  and they  have not  done so.  Wages for
labor were not invented yesterday.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 9 of 57


Consider now the situation that arises from a 16th Amendment that
was never  properly ratified.  I am not going to bother here with
spelling errors, or with differences in the capitalization of the
word "State",  that occurred  in various resolutions presented to
the state  legislatures.   I am referring, instead, to important,
official acts  which directly  affect the  legality of  the  16th
Amendment, including  the vetoes  of governors  and a State court
decision which  struck down  the Resolution.   Note the situation
that obtained in Illinois, as quoted from The Law that Never Was,
by Bill Benson and M. J. 'Red' Beckman:

     In Ryan  v.  Lynch,  68  Ill.  160,  a  certificate  of  the
     Secretary of  State purporting  to give full and true copies
     of the  journals of  the senate  and house  relating to  the
     passage of  the bill  was in  evidence and did not show that
     the bill  was read  three times  on three different days nor
     passed on  a vote  of the  ayes and noes, as required by the
     constitution, and  the court said that the bill never became
     a law  and was as completely a nullity as if it had been the
     act  or   declaration  of   an  unauthorized  assemblage  of
     individuals.

     In People v. Knopf, 198 Ill. 340, the court again stated the
     rule that if the facts essential to the passage of a law are
     not set forth in the journal the conclusion is that they did
     not transpire,  and if the journal fails to show that an act
     was passed  in the  mode prescribed  by the constitution the
     act must fail.  [page 52]


Nevertheless, U.S.  Secretary of  State Philander  Knox  declared
Illinois to  be  one  of  the  States  which  ratified  the  16th
Amendment.

In Arkansas,  Governor George  W. Donaghey  vetoed  Senate  Joint
Resolution No.  7, the  proposed 16th Amendment, and the Arkansas
Legislature failed  to override  his  veto.    According  to  the
provisions of  Article VI,  Section  16  of  the  Arkansas  State
Constitution:

     Every order  or resolution  in which the concurrence of both
     houses of  the General  Assembly may be necessary, except on
     questions  of   adjournment,  shall   be  presented  to  the
     Governor, and  before it  shall take  effect, be approved by
     him;   or being  disapproved,  shall  be  repassed  by  both
     houses, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in
     the case of a bill.


When confronted  with this  serious matter,  namely, a governor's
veto and the failure of a state legislature to override his veto,
the Solicitor of the Department of State wrote the following:

     Ratification by Arkansas.  Power of the governor to veto.
     It will  be observed from the above record that the Governor
     of the State of Arkansas vetoed the resolution passed by the
     legislature of  that State.   It is submitted, however, that
     this does  not in  any way  invalidate  the  action  of  the
     legislature or  nullify the  effect on the resolution, as it
     is believed  that  the  approval  of  the  Governor  is  not
     necessary and  that he  has not  the power  to veto  in such
     cases.

                      [quoted in The Law that Never Was, page 22]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 10 of 57


"It is  believed  that  the  approval  of  the  Governor  is  not
necessary and  that he  has not the power to veto in such cases."
Note, in  particular, who  is making this statement.  It is not a
judge;   it is not a law maker;  and it is not a law.  The person
is a  staff lawyer  in the  Department of  State, an organization
with no  authority whatsoever  to make laws or to render official
interpretations of  law.   Making federal law is a power reserved
for the Congress of the United States.  Rendering final, official
interpretations of  law is a power reserved for the Supreme Court
of the  United States.   Here,  we have the case of a ministerial
agent rendering a highly important legal opinion, and a wrong one
at that,  in a  matter affecting  the Constitution  of the United
States, the supreme law of the land.  And his opinion was allowed
to stand.  This is an abomination!

I do  not pretend  to have  any  power  to  foresee  the  future,
particularly  in   matters  affecting   the  politics   of  legal
interpretation.   Nevertheless, with  that said,  the IRS and the
federal  government   in  general  face  a  number  of  difficult
political and legal problems, should the ratification of the 16th
Amendment ever  be overturned.   Quite obviously, the IRS will no
longer be  able to  cite this Amendment as the means "under which
Congress received  constitutional authority  to levy taxes on the
income of  individuals and  corporations."  It will need to find,
or create,  some other authority to levy taxes on the "income" of
individuals and  corporations.   But this  is a  lot easier said,
than done.

With or  without a  16th Amendment, the IRS must deal with a long
series of  Supreme  Court  decisions  which  consistently  define
"taxable income" to be something quite other than wages.  More to
the point, the Supreme Court has also ruled that "Congress cannot
by any  definition it  may adopt  conclude the  matter, since  it
cannot by  legislation alter  the Constitution."  This means that
neither the  IRS  nor  Congress  have  the  authority  to  define
"income" any old way they want.  This applies to you too, Barbara
Boxer, as  an elected  member of the House of Representatives and
as a  private citizen.   Under  the Constitution  of  the  United
States, the IRS has never been empowered to make any laws in this
area.   Those seeking to re-define "income" to include wages will
need to  persuade the  Supreme Court  to  overturn  all  previous
decisions to the contrary, including decisions which investigated
in depth  the  relevant  issues  and  history  of  direct  taxes,
indirect taxes, and defining income.

Assuming for  the moment  that it  was properly  ratified,  there
remains a  serious debate,  both inside  and outside  the federal
judiciary,  as  to  whether  the  16th  Amendment  authorized  an
unapportioned direct tax on "income", or whether it authorized an
excise entitled  to be  enforced as an indirect tax.  The Pollock
Case supports  the idea  that federal  income  taxes  are  direct


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 11 of 57


taxes.   The Brushaber Case supports the idea that federal income
taxes are indirect taxes.  Contrary to Supreme Court rulings, the
IRS defines income to include wages, and cites the 16th Amendment
as its  authority for  imposing direct  taxes  on  wages  without
apportionment.   Accordingly, some  legal scholars  conclude that
the 16th  Amendment did  amend  the  Constitution,  while  others
conclude that  it did  not.   A properly  pleaded  Supreme  Court
decision would  hopefully  settle  the  several  issues  in  this
particular debate;   it  would  serve  to  determine  which  rule
applies to  "federal income  taxes"  --  apportionment for direct
taxes, uniformity  for indirect  taxes, or  neither   --   and to
provide a credible justification for this determination.

To illustrate  the range  of disagreement  on such  a fundamental
constitutional issue,  consider the  conclusion of  legal scholar
Vern Holland:

     It results, therefore: ...

     4.     That  the  Sixteenth  Amendment  did  not  amend  the
     Constitution.   The United States Supreme Court by unanimous
     decisions determined  that the  amendment did  not grant any
     new powers  of taxation;    that  a  direct  tax  cannot  be
     relieved from  the constitutional  mandate of apportionment;
     and the  only effect  of the  amendment was  to overturn the
     theory advanced in the Pollock case which held that a tax on
     income, was  in legal  effect, a  tax on  the sources of the
     income.

     [The Law that Always Was, Tulsa, 1987, F.E.A. Books, p. 220]


Now consider  an opposing  view.   After much  research and  much
litigation, author  and attorney  Jeffrey A. Dickstein offers the
following clarification:

     A tax  imposed on all of a person's annual gross receipts is
     a direct  tax on personal property that must be apportioned.
     A tax  imposed on  the "income"  derived  from  those  gross
     receipts is  also a  direct tax on property, but as a result
     of the  Sixteenth Amendment, Congress no longer has to enact
     legislation calling  for the  apportionment of a tax on that
     income.
                             [ibid., pages 60-61, emphasis added]


We must be careful not to put the cart before the horse, however.
Like it  or not,  this debate  cannot proceed any further without
squarely facing  17,000 State-certified  documents impugning  the
entire ratification  process of  the 16th  Amendment.  This means
that citizens  and lawmakers  together must  confront our current
situation "as  if  the  bill  never  became  a  law  and  was  as
completely a  nullity as if it had been the act or declaration of
an unauthorized  assemblage of  individuals."   Chicanery is  not
synonymous with  good law.   Specifically,  even if this were its
specific intent,  the 16th  Amendment could  never have done away
with the  apportionment requirement  on any  direct taxes  if  it
never became a law in the first place.  Without question, the IRS
is now  enforcing the  collection of income taxes as direct taxes
without apportionment,  and  cites  the  16th  Amendment  as  its
authority to do so.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 12 of 57


Without the  16th Amendment,  Congress does  retain its  original
authority to  levy two great categories of taxes --  direct taxes
and indirect  taxes   -- an authority it always had.  Without the
16th Amendment,  direct taxes  are constitutional,  and therefore
legal, if  and only  if they  are apportioned  across the several
States.   Taxes on wages, or on all of a person's gross receipts,
are direct  taxes on personal property which must be apportioned,
and are  illegal and unconstitutional if they are not.  Moreover,
failing the  16th Amendment  and using  Dickstein's  logic  as  a
guide, taxes  on the  "income" derived  from those gross receipts
are also  direct taxes on property, and must also be apportioned.
Without the  16th Amendment,  indirect taxes  are constitutional,
and therefore  legal, if  and only if they are uniform across the
several States.   To  the extent  that the  IRS,  and  any  other
branches of  the federal  government, should violate these rules,
they are violating the supreme law of the land and thus violating
individual  rights   which  that   supreme  law   was  explicitly
established to guarantee.

One way  out of  this dilemma  for the  federal government  is to
begin immediately  to apportion  taxes levied  on wages and other
gross receipts  of individuals, and to demonstrate to the Supreme
Court that  the totals  obtained  from  the  various  States  are
proportional to  their  respective  populations.    Irwin  Schiff
describes in simple language how this could be done.  Another way
out of  this dilemma  is to  begin immediately  to impose  income
taxes as  "excise taxes" on corporate profits, and to demonstrate
to the  satisfaction of  the Supreme Court that the resulting tax
rates are uniform across the States.  For example, it is entirely
within the  power of  Congress to  impose an  "income tax" on the
profits  of   the  Federal   Reserve  Corporation,   since   that
corporation is  not an  agency of  the federal government, and is
currently exempted from income taxes by an act of Congress.

By themselves,  neither of these are very likely to happen, or be
very easy to enforce if they do happen, should the 16th Amendment
be overturned,  and should its overturning receive the widespread
publicity it  is likely  to receive.   If  the 16th  Amendment is
overturned, the  people will,  for better  or for  worse, rejoice
that "income  taxes" have  been declared unconstitutional and, as
currently administered by the IRS, they would be right.

To resolve  any lingering  doubts, the  Supreme Court  should  be
presented  with   an  opportunity   to  determine   squarely  the
constitutionality of  a general  tax on  gross  receipts  without
apportionment.   According to  scholar Vern  Holland, a  properly
pleaded case  has never  been  brought  before  the  high  Court.
Holland asserts  that the  bulk of historical evidence allows for
only one conclusion:

     The Court  cannot ignore  the weight of evidence that proves
     that a General Tax on Income levied upon one of the Citizens
     of the several States, has always been a direct tax and must
     be apportioned.
                                                [ibid., page 220]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 13 of 57


The best  alternatives available to the federal government are to
abandon direct  taxes on  wages entirely,  to shift  instead to a
greater reliance  on excise  taxes, and  to reverse its policy of
debt financing.   The machinery for administering excise taxes is
already  in  place  for  taxing  the  sale  of  commodities  like
gasoline.   Abolishing withholding  taxes will  eliminate a huge,
involuntary burden  on the  vast working  classes of America, and
restore incentive  to a  working place  badly in  need of all the
motivation it  can muster.   It  will also put the lie to the IRS
claim that  federal "income"  taxes are  voluntary, all the while
employers are  forced to  withhold the wages of employees who are
told repeatedly they have no choice in the matter.

Moreover, there  is much  evidence to suggest that lowering taxes
would  have   the  effect   of  stimulating   the  economy  in  a
disproportionate, economically  "elastic" way.   For example, see
"Higher Taxes  Aren't the  Answer   --   History Proves  it,"  by
Stephen Moore, Reason Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, October 1990.
By abolishing  "wage taxes"  and relying  instead on excise taxes
levied upon  commercial transactions,  the government raises more
money as  the economy  improves, and  raises less  money  as  the
economy declines,  giving government a strong incentive to "tune"
its excise  taxes accordingly.   I  am prepared to share with you
some excellent  proposals for  financing the  federal  government
entirely thru a national sales tax.

This is  a far  cry from  our present  situation,  in  which  the
federal government  is fast  approaching  total  bankruptcy,  and
cannot balance  its budget  without simultaneously  raising taxes
further still  and reducing  spending even  more so.   Because it
employs so  many people  at present,  and buys  so many goods and
services, the  federal government  is  central  to  the  American
economy.   Thru  the  vehicle  of  debt  financing,  the  federal
government now  grows at  the expense  of the  economy,  plunging
future  generations  into  ever  higher  debt,  and  ever  larger
interest payments.  At the rate we are going, it is only a matter
of months before the interest payments alone on the national debt
will exceed the entire annual tax revenues to the U.S. Treasury.

It is  becoming increasingly  difficult to hide a trillion dollar
savings and loan scandal.  The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation (FSLIC)  is basically  broke.   The  Federal  Deposit
Insurance Corporation  (FDIC) now  has only  $4 billion  to cover
some $2  trillion in  bank deposits.  Thus, the federal insurance
fund covers only one-fifth of one percent of total deposits (i.e.
4 / 2000).   The FDIC will fail when only a small number of banks
collapse.   Call these  the "first  wave".   Lacking any  federal
insurance at  that point,  a second  wave of  bank failures  will
cause millions  of Americans to lose their bank deposits forever,
and possibly  also lose  the millions  of home mortgages on which
those deposits  are leveraged.   By  itself, isn't this enough to
convince you how serious is our national fiscal crisis?

Representative Barbara  Boxer, I  implore you  to  exercise  your
powers as  an elected  official in  the Congress  of  the  United
States, to examine carefully the mountain of evidence against the
16th Amendment, to investigate the many consequences of declaring


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 14 of 57


it null  and void,  and to  study the  many alternative  ways  of
financing the  federal government  without direct  taxes  on  the
gross receipts  of individuals.   You  have  a  number  of  legal
options  available  to  you,  including  the  power  to  subpoena
documents and  witnesses before  Congressional committees.    You
have it  within  your  power  to  authorize  such  committees  to
investigate charges of fraud and other illegal tampering with the
procedures for  amending the  Constitution of  the United States,
the supreme  law of  our land.   You have it within your power to
examine all  the actions of federal government officials involved
in declaring  the 16th  Amendment "ratified"  in the  year  1913,
because there  is no  statute of  limitations on  fraud.  And you
have it  within your  power to  include the  American public in a
process of open hearings, public education and free discussion on
this subject,  as you  did so wonderfully at the College of Marin
to discuss a declaration of war.

Representative Barbara Boxer, I stand ready, willing, and able to
help you  in any  way I  can to investigate further the charge of
felony fraud which I now make to you:


      THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER LAWFULLY RATIFIED.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane, Founder

Account for Better Citizenship

enclosures:  computer analysis of evidence
             against the 16th Amendment


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 15 of 57


                   Failures to Ratify the 16th Amendment
                 to the Constitution of the United States:
                         A Status Summary by State


                See  Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error
 State         Notes   #1    #2    #3    #4    #5    #6    #7    #8    #9
 ------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
 Alabama              YES   YES
 Arizona              YES   YES                                       YES
 Arkansas             YES   YES   YES                                 YES
 California           YES   YES                                       YES
 Colorado             YES                                             YES
 Connecticut    (10)                                      YES
 Delaware             YES   YES
 Florida        (11)                                      YES
 Georgia              YES   YES               YES         YES         YES
 Idaho                YES   YES         YES                           YES
 Illinois             YES   YES                                       YES
 Indiana              YES   YES                                       YES
 Iowa                 YES   YES                                       YES
 Kansas               YES   YES               YES   YES               YES
 Kentucky             YES   YES   YES                     YES         YES
 Louisiana            YES   YES                                       YES
 Maine                YES   YES                           YES         YES
 Maryland             YES   YES         YES                           YES
 Massachusetts        YES   YES                                       YES
 Michigan             YES                                             YES
 Minnesota            YES   YES                                       YES
 Mississippi          YES   YES                                       YES
 Missouri             YES               YES                           YES
 Montana              YES   YES                                       YES
 Nebraska             YES   YES                                       YES
 Nevada               YES   YES                                       YES
 New Hampshire        YES   YES
 New Jersey           YES   YES               YES
 New Mexico                                                           YES
 New York             YES   YES         YES         YES               YES
 North Carolina       YES   YES                                       YES
 North Dakota         YES   YES                                       YES
 Ohio                 YES   YES         YES                           YES
 Oklahoma             YES   YES                                       YES
 Oregon               YES   YES                                       YES
 Pennsylvania   (12)                                      YES
 Rhode Island   (13)                                      YES
 South Carolina       YES   YES                                       YES
 South Dakota         YES   YES         YES
 Tennessee            YES   YES                           YES         YES
 Texas                YES   YES                                       YES
 Utah           (14)                                            YES
 Vermont              YES   YES               YES                     YES
 Virginia       (15)                                            YES
 Washington           YES               YES                           YES
 West Virginia        YES   YES         YES                           YES
 Wisconsin            YES   YES
 Wyoming              YES   YES                                       YES


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 16 of 57


Description of Errors:

1.   Failure to concur in U. S. Senate Joint Resolution No. 40 in
     that various  changes were  made to the text of the official
     Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress.

2.   Failure to  follow  the  guidelines  for  the  return  of  a
     certified copy  of the  ratification action, as contained in
     Congressional Concurrent  Resolution No.  6, and as required
     by Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of 1878.

3.   Governor vetoed  the resolution  and the  State  Legislature
     failed to override the veto.

4.   Resolution was not submitted to the Governor for approval.

5.   State Senate failed to pass the resolution by a required 2/3
     majority.

6.   State Assembly  or House  failed to pass the resolution by a
     required 2/3 majority.

7.   State Senate failed to pass the resolution.

8.   State Assembly or House failed to pass the resolution.

9.   Other State constitutional violations not mentioned above.


(Source: The  Law That  Never Was   --   The  Fraud of  the  16th
Amendment and Personal Income Tax, by Bill Benson and M. J. 'Red'
Beckman, published  by Constitutional  Research Assoc.,  Box 550,
South Holland, IL 60473, April 1985)


Notes:

(10) The Senate  rejected the minority report of the committee on
     judiciary and federal relations recommending ratification of
     this amendment  on June  23, 1911,  by a  vote of  6 to  19.
     (Connecticut Senate Journal, 1911, pp. 1346-1348)

(11) Florida House passed H.J. Res. 192, ratifying this amendment
     on May  21, 1913,  by a  vote of  59 to  0.   (Florida House
     Journal,  1913,   p.  1686.)     The   Senate  committee  on
     constitution recommended  that the  resolution do  not pass.
     May 27, 1913.  (Florida Senate Journal, 1913, p. 1745.)

(12) The House  passed a joint resolution ratifying the sixteenth
     amendment  on  May  10,  1911,  by  a  vote  of  139  to  4.
     (Pennsylvania House  Journal, 1911,  pp.  2690-2691.)    The
     Senate referred  the joint  resolution to  the committee  on
     judiciary special,  where  it  lay.    (Pennsylvania  Senate
     Journal, 1911, p. 2162.)


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 17 of 57


(13) Senate resolution  refusing to  ratify  this  amendment  was
     concurred in  by House  April 29, 1910.  (Rhode Island House
     Journal, April 29, 1910.)

(14) The House  rejected this  amendment on  March 9,  1911, by a
     vote of  31 to 10.  (Utah House Journal, 1911, pp. 606-607.)
     The Senate  passed the resolution ratifying the amendment by
     a vote  of 12  to 2  on  February  17,  1911.  (Utah  Senate
     Journal, 1911, p. 256.)

(15) The Senate  ratified this  amendment by a vote of 19 to 5 on
     March 9,  1910.   (Virginia Senate  Journal, 1910,  pp. 651-
     652.)   The House  Journal, 1910,  does not  show that  this
     resolution ratifying the amendment ever came to a vote.


(Notes 10-15 from U.S. Senate Document No. 240, 71st Congress,
"Ratification of the Constitution and Amendments by the States")


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 18 of 57


Defense Strategy 1:
States Made Changes to the Text of the Resolution

     state           error1
     --------------- ------
 1   Alabama         YES
 2   Arizona         YES
 3   Arkansas        YES
 4   California      YES
 5   Colorado        YES
 6   Delaware        YES
 7   Georgia         YES
 8   Idaho           YES
 9   Illinois        YES
10   Indiana         YES
11   Iowa            YES
12   Kansas          YES
13   Kentucky        YES     [number needed to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   Louisiana       YES
15   Maine           YES
16   Maryland        YES
17   Massachusetts   YES
18   Michigan        YES
19   Minnesota       YES
20   Mississippi     YES
21   Missouri        YES
22   Montana         YES
23   Nebraska        YES
24   Nevada          YES
25   New Hampshire   YES
26   New Jersey      YES
27   New York        YES
28   North Carolina  YES
29   North Dakota    YES
30   Ohio            YES
31   Oklahoma        YES
32   Oregon          YES
33   South Carolina  YES
34   South Dakota    YES
35   Tennessee       YES
36   Texas           YES
37   Vermont         YES
38   Washington      YES
39   West Virginia   YES
40   Wisconsin       YES
41   Wyoming         YES     [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
42   Connecticut
43   Florida
44   New Mexico
45   Pennsylvania
46   Rhode Island
47   Utah
48   Virginia


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 19 of 57


Defense Strategy 2:
Various Violations of State Constitutions

     state           error9
     --------------- ------
 1   Arizona         YES
 2   Arkansas        YES
 3   California      YES
 4   Colorado        YES
 5   Georgia         YES
 6   Idaho           YES
 7   Illinois        YES
 8   Indiana         YES
 9   Iowa            YES
10   Kansas          YES
11   Kentucky        YES
12   Louisiana       YES
13   Maine           YES     [number needed to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   Maryland        YES
15   Massachusetts   YES
16   Michigan        YES
17   Minnesota       YES
18   Mississippi     YES
19   Missouri        YES
20   Montana         YES
21   Nebraska        YES
22   Nevada          YES
23   New Mexico      YES
24   New York        YES
25   North Carolina  YES
26   North Dakota    YES
27   Ohio            YES
28   Oklahoma        YES
29   Oregon          YES
30   South Carolina  YES
31   Tennessee       YES
32   Texas           YES
33   Vermont         YES
34   Washington      YES
35   West Virginia   YES
36   Wyoming         YES     [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
37   Alabama
38   Connecticut
39   Delaware
40   Florida
41   New Hampshire
42   New Jersey
43   Pennsylvania
44   Rhode Island
45   South Dakota
46   Utah
47   Virginia
48   Wisconsin


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 20 of 57


Defense Strategy 3:
States Failed to Follow Guidelines for Certified Copy

     state           error2
     --------------- ------
 1   Alabama         YES
 2   Arizona         YES
 3   Arkansas        YES
 4   California      YES
 5   Delaware        YES
 6   Georgia         YES
 7   Idaho           YES
 8   Illinois        YES
 9   Indiana         YES
10   Iowa            YES
11   Kansas          YES
12   Kentucky        YES
13   Louisiana       YES     [number needed to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   Maine           YES
15   Maryland        YES
16   Massachusetts   YES
17   Minnesota       YES
18   Mississippi     YES
19   Montana         YES
20   Nebraska        YES
21   Nevada          YES
22   New Hampshire   YES
23   New Jersey      YES
24   New York        YES
25   North Carolina  YES
26   North Dakota    YES
27   Ohio            YES
28   Oklahoma        YES
29   Oregon          YES
30   South Carolina  YES
31   South Dakota    YES
32   Tennessee       YES
33   Texas           YES
34   Vermont         YES
35   West Virginia   YES
36   Wisconsin       YES
37   Wyoming         YES     [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
38   Colorado
39   Connecticut
40   Florida
41   Michigan
42   Missouri
43   New Mexico
44   Pennsylvania
45   Rhode Island
46   Utah
47   Virginia
48   Washington


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 21 of 57


Defense Strategy 4:
Confirmed Noes + Governor Vetoes + Errors 4 - 8

     state           error10 error3 error4 error5 error6 error7 error8
     --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
 1   Virginia        (15)                                       YES
 2   Utah            (14)                                       YES
 3   Rhode Island    (13)                                YES
 4   Pennsylvania    (12)                                YES
 5   Florida         (11)                                YES
 6   Connecticut     (10)                                YES
 7   Kentucky                YES                         YES
 8   Arkansas                YES
 9   New York                       YES           YES
10   Idaho                          YES
11   Maryland                       YES
12   Missouri                       YES
13   Ohio                           YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   South Dakota                   YES
15   Washington                     YES
16   West Virginia                  YES
17   Kansas                                YES    YES
18   Georgia                               YES           YES
19   New Jersey                            YES
20   Vermont                               YES
21   Maine                                               YES
22   Tennessee                                           YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23   Alabama
24   Arizona
25   California
26   Colorado
27   Delaware
28   Illinois
29   Indiana
30   Iowa
31   Louisiana
32   Massachusetts
33   Michigan
34   Minnesota
35   Mississippi
36   Montana
37   Nebraska
38   Nevada
39   New Hampshire
40   New Mexico
41   North Carolina
42   North Dakota
43   Oklahoma
44   Oregon
45   South Carolina
46   Texas
47   Wisconsin
48   Wyoming


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 22 of 57


Defense Strategy 5:
Failed House/Senate + Failed 2/3 + Vetoes and not Submitted to Governor

     state           error7 error8 error5 error6 error3 error4
     --------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
 1   Georgia         YES           YES
 2   Kentucky        YES                         YES
 3   Connecticut     YES
 4   Florida         YES
 5   Maine           YES
 6   Pennsylvania    YES
 7   Rhode Island    YES
 8   Tennessee       YES
 9   Utah                   YES
10   Virginia               YES
11   Kansas                        YES    YES
12   New Jersey                    YES
13   Vermont                       YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   New York                             YES           YES
15   Arkansas                                    YES
16   Idaho                                              YES
17   Maryland                                           YES
18   Missouri                                           YES
19   Ohio                                               YES
20   South Dakota                                       YES
21   Washington                                         YES
22   West Virginia                                      YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23   Alabama
24   Arizona
25   California
26   Colorado
27   Delaware
28   Illinois
29   Indiana
30   Iowa
31   Louisiana
32   Massachusetts
33   Michigan
34   Minnesota
35   Mississippi
36   Montana
37   Nebraska
38   Nevada
39   New Hampshire
40   New Mexico
41   North Carolina
42   North Dakota
43   Oklahoma
44   Oregon
45   South Carolina
46   Texas
47   Wisconsin
48   Wyoming


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 23 of 57


Defense Strategy 6:
Confirmed Noes + Governor Vetoes + Not Submitted to Governor

     state           error10 error3 error4 error5 error6 error7 error8
     --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
 1   Virginia        (15)                                       YES
 2   Utah            (14)                                       YES
 3   Rhode Island    (13)                                YES
 4   Pennsylvania    (12)                                YES
 5   Florida         (11)                                YES
 6   Connecticut     (10)                                YES
 7   Kentucky                YES                         YES
 8   Arkansas                YES
 9   New York                       YES           YES
10   Idaho                          YES
11   Maryland                       YES
12   Missouri                       YES
13   Ohio                           YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   South Dakota                   YES
15   Washington                     YES
16   West Virginia                  YES
17   Kansas                                YES    YES
18   Georgia                               YES           YES
19   New Jersey                            YES
20   Vermont                               YES
21   Maine                                               YES
22   Tennessee                                           YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23   Alabama
24   Arizona
25   California
26   Colorado
27   Delaware
28   Illinois
29   Indiana
30   Iowa
31   Louisiana
32   Massachusetts
33   Michigan
34   Minnesota
35   Mississippi
36   Montana
37   Nebraska
38   Nevada
39   New Hampshire
40   New Mexico
41   North Carolina
42   North Dakota
43   Oklahoma
44   Oregon
45   South Carolina
46   Texas
47   Wisconsin
48   Wyoming


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 24 of 57


                                        c/o General Delivery
                                        San Rafael, California
                                        Postal Zone 94903/tdc

                                        March 11, 1991

Foreman
Marin County Grand Jury
Hall of Justice
Civic Center
San Rafael, California
Postal Zone 94903/tdc

Dear Foreman:

Enclosed with  this letter  please find our completed Request for
Investigation by the Marin County Grand Jury.

As stated in the summary section of our completed form, we hereby
request the Marin County Grand Jury to do the following:

(1)  to  investigate   possible  obstruction   of   justice   and
     misprision of felony by Representative Barbara Boxer for her
     failure,  against   a  spoken  promise  before  hundreds  of
     witnesses at  Pt. 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 Representative  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,

(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.


Attached please  find  a  signed  copy  of  the  formal,  written
petition which  I have  already sent to Rep. Boxer via registered
United States  mail, return receipt requested and received.  This
petition is  dated December  24, 1990.   A  second copy  of  this
petition was sent at the same time via standard, first class mail
to her  office in Washington, D.C, and a third copy was also sent
via first class mail to her office in San Rafael, California.

This petition  seeks  to  state  the  problem  as  succinctly  as
possible, to  review the  relevant decisions  of the U.S. Supreme
Court,  to   analyze  the  legal  and  economic  implications  of
nullifying the so-called 16th Amendment, and to present a summary
of numerous  State-certified documents  which prove  that  felony
fraud was  committed when  this Amendment was "declared" ratified
in the year 1913 by then Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 25 of 57


As the  author of  this petition and as an interested citizen who
is,  above   all,  dedicated  to  preserving  our  constitutional
republic  and   the  rule  of  law  which  the  constitution  was
explicitly established  to guarantee,  it is my earnest hope that
you  will  review  these  materials  with  the  utmost  care  and
attention to detail which they deserve.

The story you are about to read would fill volumes of fascinating
historical fiction,  were it  not all  true in every last detail.
Please consider  me to be ready, willing, and able to assist you,
in any  way I  can, to review every relevant detail with honesty,
integrity, and  an unflagging  passion for  the truth,  the whole
truth, and  nothing but  the truth  in this critical matter which
now affects the entire nation in so many ways.

Thank you  very much for your consideration.  I will look forward
to your prompt response to this Request.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane, Founder

Account for Better Citizenship

Attachments:

     Request for Grand Jury Investigation
     Memo dated 1/1/91 summarizing petition  
     Formal petition dated 12/24/90
     Excerpts from U.S. criminal codes
     Text of statement read aloud to Rep. Boxer, 8/22/90
     How It All Began: a quote from Eustace Mullins
     Proof of registered mail sent and received


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 26 of 57


Misprision of Felony, 18 U.S.C. 4 states:

     Whoever, having  knowledge of  the actual  commission  of  a
     felony cognizable  by a court of the United States, conceals
     and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some
     judge or  other person  in civil or military authority under
     the United  States, shall  be fined  not more  than $500  or
     imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


18 U.S.C. 1001 states:

     Whoever, in  any  matter  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any
     department or  agency of  the United  States  knowingly  and
     willfully falsifies,  conceals, or  covers up  by any trick,
     scheme, or  device a  material fact,  or  makes  any  false,
     fictitious or  fraudulent statement  or representations,  or
     makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same
     to contain  any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or
     entry, shall  be fined  not more  than $10,000 or imprisoned
     not more than five years, or both.


18 U.S.C. 1002 states:

     Whoever, knowingly  and with  intent to  defraud the  United
     States, or any agency thereof, possesses any false, altered,
     forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose
     of enabling  another to  obtain from  the United  States, or
     from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money,
     shall be  fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more
     than five years, or both.


18 U.S.C. 1017 states:

     Whoever fraudulently  or wrongfully affixes or impresses the
     seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or
     upon any  certificate, instrument,  commission, document, or
     paper or  with knowledge  of its  fraudulent character, with
     wrongful or  fraudulent intent, uses, buys, procures, sells,
     or transfers  to another  any such  certificate, instrument,
     commission, document,  or paper, to which or upon which said
     seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be
     fined not  more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five
     years, or both.


18 U.S.C. 1018 states:

     Whoever, being  a public  officer or other person authorized
     by  any  law  of  the  United  States  to  make  or  give  a
     certificate or  other writing,  knowingly makes and delivers
     as true  such  a  certificate  or  writing,  containing  any
     statement which  he knows  to be  false, in a case where the
     punishment thereof  is not  elsewhere expressly  provided by
     law, shall  be fined  not more  than $500  or imprisoned not
     more than one year, or both.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 27 of 57


18 U.S.C. 3 states:

     Whoever, knowing  that an  offense against the United States
     has  been  committed,  receives,  comforts  or  assists  the
     offender in  order to  hinder or  prevent his  apprehension,
     trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

     Except  as   otherwise  expressly  provided  by  an  Act  of
     Congress, an  accessory after  the fact  shall be imprisoned
     not more  than one-half  the maximum term of imprisonment or
     fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for
     the punishment  of the  principal,  or  both;    or  if  the
     principal is  punishable by  death, the  accessory shall  be
     imprisoned not more than ten years.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 28 of 57


                                        c/o General Delivery
                                        San Rafael, California
                                        Postal Zone 94903/tdc

                                        April 15, 1991

Rep. Barbara Boxer
House of Representatives
United States Congress
Washington, D.C.
Postal Zone 20515

Dear Rep. Boxer:

Thank you  very much for your brief letter to me, dated March 27,
1991.   I appreciate  your decision  to refer  my petition  dated
December 24,  1990, to  the House  Ways and  Means Committee, for
comments from that committee's counsel.

From prior  contacts with  other American citizens who have filed
similar petitions  with their  representatives in the Congress, I
know that a stock answer is to send to constituents a copy of the
so-called Ripy Report, "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment,"
by Thomas  B. Ripy,  Congressional Research Service, May 20, 1985
(see enclosed).

Before you  or Committee  counsel make  the same mistake with me,
please understand  that I  already possess  a copy  of  the  Ripy
Report and find it entirely unsatisfactory as to matters of fact.
Specifically, the  Ripy Report  does not attempt to challenge any
of the  material facts presented by authors Benson and Beckman in
the book The Law That Never Was.

You will  recall that  my petition  to you  of December  24, 1990
included a  computer-based summary  of the  evidence against  the
16th Amendment.   Once again, permit me to summarize only some of
these facts, as follows:

     *    Eleven States amended the proposed resolution.

     *    The Senate  of  the  State  of  Kentucky  rejected  the
          proposed amendment  by a  vote of  9 for and 22 against
          ratification.

     *    Five States  failed to  ratify  the  amendment  by  the
          required two-thirds  majority in one of the chambers of
          their legislatures  (Georgia,  Kansas,  New  York,  New
          Jersey, and Vermont).

     *    Minnesota, California  and  Ohio  never  sent  official
          notification of  the action  taken by  their respective
          legislatures.

     *    Another six  States did  not record whatever action was
          taken by  their respective legislatures in the Journals
          of their General Assemblies.

     *    Ten States never voted on the proposed amendment.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 29 of 57


     *    Nine  States   deleted  the   preamble  to   the  joint
          resolution.

     *    Twenty-six  States   changed  the  punctuation  of  the
          preamble.

     *    Twenty-five  States  changed  the  punctuation  of  the
          resolution.

     *    Twenty-four  States   changed  the   capitalization  of
          certain words.

     *    Nineteen States made grammatical changes.

     *    An Illinois  State Court  ruled that "it 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."  (Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill. 160)

     *    The Governor  of  the  State  of  Arkansas  vetoed  the
          resolution, the Arkansas Legislature never overrode his
          veto, and  the Arkansas  Constitution  did  not  exempt
          Constitutional amendments from a governor's signature.

     *    Oklahoma changed  the proposal  so as  to  require  the
          laying of  an  income  tax  pursuant  to  a  census  or
          enumeration,  the   precise  requirement  the  proposed
          amendment sought to alleviate.


On February  15, 1913,  the Solicitor  of  the  State  Department
advised Secretary of State Philander C. Knox that:

       "... under provisions of the Constitution a legislature is
     not authorized to alter IN ANY WAY the amendment proposed by
     Congress, the  function of the legislature consisting merely
     in  the   right  to   approve  or  disapprove  the  proposed
     amendment."

     ("Ratification of  the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of
     the United States," Office of the Solicitor, emphasis added)


Accordingly, I  find it  necessary to  agree  entirely  with  the
following statement  by attorney and litigator Andrew B. Spiegel,
from his publication which I have enclosed with this letter:

     "The Ripy  Report does  not attempt  to challenge any of the
     facts presented  by William  J. Benson  ....   Thus, for the
     purposes of  this argument,  those facts  must be  taken  as
     conceded by the government.  It is those facts which lead to
     the inescapable  conclusion that  the so-called  income  tax
     amendment is null and void."

     [from "Ratification  of the  Income Tax  Amendment: Has  the
     Federal Government Defrauded the American People? A Response
     to the  Ripy Report,"  Constitutional  Research  Associates,
     September 15, 1986, p. 2, emphasis added]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 30 of 57


Moreover, in  your letter of March 27, 1991, referring to counsel
for the  Ways and  Means Committee,  you state, "His views on the
matter are  crucial."  With all due respect, I must also disagree
with this  statement.   Although I  would have  to agree that his
views may  be important, as far as written records are concerned,
they are  certainly not  crucial, not  to me,  not as  I use that
term.   The Constitution,  laws  that  are  consistent  with  the
Constitution, fully  informed jury verdicts, and official rulings
of the  U.S. Supreme  Court are  crucial to  me, not the views of
hired lawyers who happen to enjoy staff positions on this or that
Congressional committee.   I  do expect  you  to  appreciate  the
difference between these two sources of "view".

I am  sending a copy of this letter to Rep. Dan Rostenkowski with
the hope  that it will prevent any fruitless attempt by his staff
to satisfy  me with  a copy  of the  Ripy Report,  a report which
clearly fails to deal with crucial matters of fact.

Thank you  again for your consideration in this matter which has,
by now,  affected many millions of Americans since the year 1913,
the year  in which  the so-called  16th Amendment  was "declared"
ratified, and the year in which the Federal Reserve Act was first
enacted into law.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane, Founder

Account for Better Citizenship


enclosure:  "... Response to the Ripy Report,"
            by Andrew B. Spiegel

copies:     Rep. Dan Rostenkowski
            interested citizens


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 31 of 57


REGISTERED U.S. MAIL:                   c/o General Delivery
Return Receipt Requested                San Rafael, California
                                        Postal Zone 94903/tdc

                                        May 3, 1991

Rep. Barbara Boxer
House of Representatives
United States Congress
Washington, D.C.
Postal Zone 20515

Dear Rep. Boxer:

I am  entirely unsatisfied with your letter dated April 12, 1991.
At various  times during  the past  year, I have requested you in
person, and  in writing, to examine the material evidence against
the 16th  Amendment.   At your  community meeting in Pt. Reyes on
August 22,  1990, in  front of  several  hundred  witnesses,  you
agreed to  do so,  and you  have not done so.  At no time between
then and now, have you demonstrated to me that you have, in fact,
examined any of the material evidence against the ratification of
the 16th Amendment.

Instead, you  have referred  my formal,  written petition  to the
Chairman of  the  House  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.    Rep.
Rostenkowski responded  to you  with documents  that  included  a
cover letter  dated April  8, 1991,  and  a  copy  of  "Part  IX:
Frequently Asked  Questions Concerning  the Federal  Income Tax,"
from CRS  Report for Congress, 89-623 A, November 17, 1989.  Your
letter of  April 12,  1991 amounts  to nothing  more than another
cover letter, transmitting these documents to me.

To repeat, your response fails to demonstrate to me that you have
examined any of the material evidence against the 16th Amendment.

Moreover, I  find a  number of  serious  errors,  omissions,  and
deficiencies in the CRS Report from Rep. Rostenkowski.  Permit me
to examine  only those  errors which I consider to be major ones,
in the interest of brevity.

First of all, the CRS Report attempts to answer this question:

         Was the Sixteenth Amendment properly ratified?


In answer  to this question, however, the Report limits its scope
to answering only two subordinate questions:

     1.   Did the  President sign the resolution which became the
          Sixteenth Amendment.

     2.   Do clerical  errors in the ratifying resolutions of the
          various state  legislatures negate  the ratification of
          the Sixteenth Amendment?


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 32 of 57


I agree  with  the  Report's  answer  to  the  first  subordinate
question, namely,  that constitutional  amendments  need  not  be
submitted to the President.  However, I cannot accept the limited
scope of the second question, nor the limited scope of the answer
provided.  The CRS Report would have us believe that the problems
with the  16th Amendment  are limited  to  "variations  from  the
resolution enacted  by Congress  in punctuation,  capitalization,
and/or spelling"  [page 310].   Barbara,  I certainly hope you do
not expect  me to believe that a Governor's veto is the same as a
"clerical error", or that the failure to satisfy the 2/3 majority
required by some State Constitutions is a "clerical error!"

The  problems   with  the  16th  Amendment  are  not  limited  to
variations  in   punctuation,  capitalization,  and/or  spelling.
These problems include serious, official acts by Governors, State
Legislatures, and  at least  one State  Court.   For example, the
Governor of  the State of Arkansas vetoed the resolution to amend
the Constitution.  The Kentucky Senate Journal recorded a vote of
9 FOR  and 22  AGAINST the  resolution.   An Illinois State court
ruled that  "it 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."   My letter  to you  dated April 15,
1991, summarized  the major  problems.   At the risk of repeating
myself, permit me to summarize once again some of these problems,
as follows:

     *    Eleven States amended the proposed resolution.

     *    The Senate  of  the  State  of  Kentucky  rejected  the
          proposed amendment  by a  vote of  9 for and 22 against
          ratification.

     *    Five States  failed to  ratify  the  amendment  by  the
          required two-thirds  majority in one of the chambers of
          their legislatures  (Georgia,  Kansas,  New  York,  New
          Jersey, and Vermont).

     *    Minnesota, California  and  Ohio  never  sent  official
          notification of  the action  taken by  their respective
          legislatures.

     *    Another six  States did  not record whatever action was
          taken by  their respective legislatures in the Journals
          of their General Assemblies.

     *    Ten States never voted on the proposed amendment.

     *    Nine  States   deleted  the   preamble  to   the  joint
          resolution.

     *    Twenty-six  States   changed  the  punctuation  of  the
          preamble.

     *    Twenty-five  States  changed  the  punctuation  of  the
          resolution.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 33 of 57


     *    Twenty-four  States   changed  the   capitalization  of
          certain words.

     *    Nineteen States made grammatical changes.

     *    An Illinois  State Court  ruled that "it 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."  (Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill. 160)

     *    The Governor  of  the  State  of  Arkansas  vetoed  the
          resolution, the Arkansas Legislature never overrode his
          veto, and  the Arkansas  Constitution  did  not  exempt
          Constitutional amendments from a governor's signature.

     *    Oklahoma changed  the proposal  so as  to  require  the
          laying of  an  income  tax  pursuant  to  a  census  or
          enumeration,  the   precise  requirement  the  proposed
          amendment sought to alleviate.


On February  15, 1913,  the Solicitor  of  the  State  Department
advised Secretary of State Philander C. Knox that:

       "... under provisions of the Constitution a legislature is
     not authorized to alter IN ANY WAY the amendment proposed by
     Congress, the  function of the legislature consisting merely
     in  the   right  to   approve  or  disapprove  the  proposed
     amendment."

     ["Ratification of  the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of
     the United States," Office of the Solicitor, emphasis added]


The CRS  Report also  errs by  expecting readers  to  accept  the
proposition   that    "the   correctness   of   the   Secretary's
certification  is   a  political   question  and   therefore  his
certification is  conclusive upon  the courts"  [emphasis added].
This is tantamount to saying that fraud is a "political question"
and cannot be adjudicated by any courts because it is fraud  -- a
notion that is patently absurd.  Moreover, the following criteria
are quoted to identify the existence of a political question in a
given case:

     *    a  lack   of  judicially  discoverable  and  manageable
          standards for resolving it

     *    the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
          determination  of   a  kind   clearly  for  nonjudicial
          discretion

     *    the impossibility  of a court's undertaking independent
          resolution without  expressing lack  of the respect due
          coordinate branches of government.


There is  no  lack  of  judicially  discoverable  and  manageable
standards for resolving the factual problems with 16th Amendment.
In fact,  there are  plenty of  such standards;   they are called
rules of  evidence, and  they are so fundamental to jurisprudence
in this  country, they  are required  reading for  first-year law
students everywhere.   The  judiciary enjoys  a well  established
body of  rules  for  discovering,  admitting,  and  managing  all
manners of material evidence.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 34 of 57


The process for amending the Constitution is clearly written into
the Constitution  itself.  As such, there exists a clear "initial
policy determination",  and this  policy determination is clearly
not of  a kind for nonjudicial discretion.  The Constitution does
not authorize  the Secretary  of State to exercise any discretion
when certifying  amendments thereto.  Specifically, the Secretary
of State  is not  empowered to  decide that  "the approval of the
Governor is  not necessary  and that he has not the power to veto
in such  cases," even if the Secretary sincerely believes, albeit
wrongly, that he does enjoy this power.

Courts can  and have  undertaken independent  resolution of  such
issues without expressing a lack of respect due to other branches
of government.  An Illinois Court has already voided that State's
vote on  the resolution  to approve the 16th Amendment.  The U.S.
Supreme Court  has  declared  several  acts  of  Congress  to  be
unconstitutional.   If the  Secretary of  State fails to abide by
the official  guidelines for  amending the Constitution, it is he
who lacks respect due to the other branches of government.  It is
he who  has failed to abide by his solemn oath of office, namely,
to uphold  and defend the Constitution of the United States.  The
high Court  is under  no obligation  to "express respect" for the
other branches  of  the  federal  government  by  allowing  their
unconstitutional acts  to remain  intact and uncorrected.  On the
contrary, the federal system of checks and balances has made this
corrective action an essential government institution.

The second  major problem  I have  with the  CRS Report has to do
with the following two questions:

     1.   What is income?

     2.   Are wages taxable as income?


In answer  to the  first  question,  the  Report  summarizes  the
definition of "income" as follows:

     Income has  been defined  as gain derived from capital, from
     labor, or  from both  combined.   The operative word in this
     definition is  gain.   Gain, in  the  tax  context,  is  the
     surplus when the basis of an item ... is subtracted from the
     item's fair market value.

                           [CRS Report, page 316, emphasis added]


I have  no dispute  with this  definition.  However, in answer to
the second question, the Report uses the following example:

     ... if  John Doe  works 5  hours for  $5.00 per hour, is the
     $25.00 he  receives taxable  income to him?  As we have seen
     in the above analysis, we must determine if there has been a
     gain which is realized and recognized.
     To see  if there  was a gain we do not look only to the fair
     market value  of the  labor, but  rather  we  determine  the
     difference between  the fair  market  value  and  his  basis
     (cost) in  the labor.   Generally  one has  a zero  basis in
     one's own  labor.   Therefore, Doe's gain is $25.00 minus 0,
     or $25.00.   This  gain is  realized when Doe is paid or has
     right to receive payment.
                                  [pages 316-317, emphasis added]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 35 of 57


Unfortunately  for   the  CRS  Report,  it  cites  absolutely  no
authority for  its empty assertion that "generally one has a zero
basis in  one's own  labor".  This assertion is a fatal flaw.  It
has been  made without reference to the relevant decisions of the
U.S. Supreme  Court, and  without reference  to the intent of the
framers of  the 16th  Amendment.   As  such,  this  assertion  is
arbitrary;  it is also ludicrous.  Author Alan Stang explains why
it is ludicrous, and does so better than anyone else:

     We warned  you that  reading this book could be dangerous to
     people with  heart conditions.  Now that you have gotten off
     the floor,  you may want to read that paragraph again.  Yes,
     it does really say what you thought it says, doesn't it?  It
     says that  generally (not  specifically?) you  have  a  zero
     basis in  your labor.  In other words, it says your labor is
     worthless.   Now you  know.   Why does your employer, who is
     presumably intelligent,  buy something  that  is  worthless?
     Notice that  these government authors do admit you must have
     gain in  order to  have income,  even if wages are your only
     receipts.

         [Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Alta Loma, CA, Mount Sinai Press]
                                  [1988, page 78, emphasis added]


Attached to  this  letter,  please  find  numerous  authoritative
definitions of  "taxable income"  as this  phrase is  clearly and
consistently defined  by decisions  of the U.S. Supreme Court and
lower courts  which concur.  These decisions remain in full force
today.   Note, in  particular, that the Supreme Court has already
instructed Congress  that it  is essential to distinguish between
what is  and what  is not "income", and to apply that distinction
according to  truth and substance.  In that instruction, the high
Court has  told Congress  that it  has absolutely  no power to be
arbitrary (or ludicrous) in its official definition of income:

     Congress cannot  by any definition it may adopt conclude the
     matter,  since   it  cannot   by   legislation   alter   the
     Constitution, from  which alone  it  derives  its  power  to
     legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can
     be lawfully exercised.
                                 [Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189]


Remember, this  is not the writing of some radical constitutional
libertarian.  These are the words of the Supreme Court, in a case
which is  one of  the most famous and important rulings to render
official definitions  of "income".  Whatever arguments you choose
to make  from this point forward, those arguments would certainly
benefit from  a knowledge  of the relevant case law in this area.
I mean, if we're talking gasoline taxes, then we know the subject
of the  tax is gasoline;  if we're talking tobacco taxes, then we
know the subject is tobacco.  Why should a tax on "income" be any
different?   Just  because  the  Congressional  Research  Service
chooses to  differ with  the Supreme Court?  Just because the IRS
uses police  power to  enforce  a  different  definition?    Just
because the  Federal Reserve  needs a  powerful agency to collect
interest payments for its syndicated monopoly on private credit?


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 36 of 57


Here, I  find  it  necessary  to  repeat  the  conclusions  of  a
recognized authority  who has studied this issue in depth.  After
reviewing all  the relevant  federal court decisions for the past
80  years,  constitutional  tax  expert  and  author  Jeffrey  A.
Dickstein has written the following to summarize his findings:

     Income has  been defined  by the United States Supreme Court
     to be  a profit or a gain derived from various sources, such
     as labor  and capital.   A  tax directly  on the source is a
     direct tax,  and must  still be  apportioned.   A tax on the
     income derived  from the  source need  not  be  apportioned.
     Labor, the  labor contract, and the right to sell labor have
     all been  held by  the Supreme Court to constitute property.
     The procedure  to determine  if there is a gain derived from
     the sale  of property  has been set forth by Congress.  Gain
     is derived  only if  one receives  over and  above the  fair
     market value  of the  cost of  the property.    These  basic
     principles are  simple to  state and  simple to apply.  They
     also lead to one inescapable conclusion:

                 WAGES DO NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME.

             [Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, Missoula, MT]
             [Custom Prints, 1990, pages 277-280, emphasis added]


Representative Boxer,  I must  now go on record to state, clearly
and unequivocally,  that you  have failed me.  You have failed me
because you  have failed  to keep  the promise  you  made  before
several hundred witnesses on August 22, 1990.  You have failed me
because you  have failed to uphold and defend the Constitution of
the United  States.   This Constitution is my explicit delegation
of power  to you, an elected member of the Congress of the United
States.

You have  failed me  because, by shuffling papers back and forth,
you have  deliberately refused  to examine  the material evidence
which  impugns  the  entire  ratification  process  of  the  16th
Amendment.   This material  evidence proves 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.

Until and  unless you  demonstrate to  me that  you have examined
this material evidence, I am very sad to say I now have no choice
but to include you among the many persons who are responsible for
perpetrating this fraud upon our entire nation.

I want  you to know that this matter is much too important to me,
and to millions of hard-working Americans, for me to be dissuaded
by some little paper war you prefer to wage.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 37 of 57


Either do  the job you were elected to do, or be mature enough to
accept the legal and political consequences.

Consider yourself warned.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane, Founder

Account for Better Citizenship

enclosures: "Defining Income:  The Court Record"
             Text of first published advertisement
             Computer analysis of evidence
              against the 16th Amendment

copy:  Rep. Dan Rostenkowski


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 38 of 57


                  Defining Income:  The Court Record

Repeat these words, out loud, at least three times a day:

                         WE, THE PEOPLE, CAN
                    ABOLISH THE ILLEGAL INCOME TAX

Please join us in teaching the American people to:

                         TAKE THE SECOND STEP

to educate each other with the relevant facts and authorities.

Wages are  not "taxable  income"  as  the  term  is  clearly  and
consistently defined  by U.S. Supreme Court decisions that remain
in full force today.

We now cite verbatim the relevant decisions from the U.S. Supreme
Court and lower courts which concur:

Income is NOT everything that comes in:

     We must  reject ... the broad contention submitted in behalf
     of the  Government that  all receipts   --   everything that
     comes in  --   are income  within the  proper definition  of
     "gross income" ....

           [Southern Pacific Company v. John Z. Lowe, 247 US 330]


Corporate profits are "income":

     [Income] imports,  as used here, something entirely distinct
     from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or
     as a  measure of the tax;  conveying rather the idea of gain
     or increase arising from corporate activities.

      [Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company, 247 US 179]


The Constitution PROHIBITS direct taxes without apportionment:

     This court  had decided  in the Pollock Case that the income
     tax law  of 1894  amounted in  effect to  a direct  tax upon
     property, and  was invalid because not apportioned according
     to population  as prescribed  by the  Constitution  ...  for
     "income" may  be defined  as the  gain derived from capital,
     from labor, or from both combined.

                  [Stratton's Independence v. Howbert 231 US 406]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 39 of 57


Congress CANNOT change the Constitution:

     In order,  therefore, that  the  clauses  cited  above  from
     Article I  of the  Constitution may  have proper  force  and
     effect  ... it becomes essential to distinguish between what
     is and what is not "income," as the term is there used;  and
     to  apply   the  distinction  ...  according  to  truth  and
     substance, without  regard to  form.  Congress cannot by any
     definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot
     by legislation  alter the  Constitution, from which alone it
     derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations
     alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

                  [Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 US 189]


Again, "income" is a gain, a profit:

     Here we  have the  essential matter  --  not a gain accruing
     to capital,  not a  growth or  increment  of  value  in  the
     investment;  but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable
     value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital
     however  invested   or  employed,   and  coming   in,  being
     "derived," that  is received  or drawn by the recipient (the
     taxpayer) for  his separate  use, benefit,  and disposal  --
     that is  income derived from property.  Nothing else answers
     the description.

                  [Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 US 189]


Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY ruled that wages are not "income":

     In determining  the definition  of the  word  "income"  thus
     arrived at,  this court  has consistently  refused to  enter
     into the  refinements of  lexicographers and  economists and
     has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to
     be the commonly understood meaning of the term ....

     We continue  entirely satisfied  with that  definition, and,
     since the  fund here  taxed was the amount realized from the
     sale of  the stock  in 1917,  less the capital investment as
     determined by  the trustee  as  of  March  1,  1913,  it  is
     palpable that  it was  a "gain  or profit"  "produced by" or
     "derived from" that investment, and that it "proceeded," and
     was "severed"  or rendered  severable, from, by the sale for
     cash, and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been
     repeatedly declared to be taxable income ....

               [Merchant's Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509]


"Income" has been legally and officially defined:

     And the  definition of  "income" approved  by this Court is:
     "The gain  derived from  capital, from  labor, or  from both
     combined," provided  it  be  understood  to  include  profit
     gained through  a sale or conversion of capital assets.  ...
     It is  thus very  plain that  the statute imposes the income
     tax on  the proceeds of the sale of personal property to the
     extent only  that gains  are derived therefrom by the vendor
     ....
                                [Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 US 527]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 40 of 57


You do NOT obtain "income" by charging for services rendered:

     The phraseology  of form  1040 is somewhat obscure ....  But
     it matters  little what  it does  mean;  the statute and the
     statute alone  determines what  is income  to be  taxed.  It
     taxes only  income "derived"  from many  different  sources;
     one does  not "derive  income"  by  rendering  services  and
     charging for them.

                   [Edwards v. Keith, Second Circuit,  231 F 111]


"Income" means "gain" --  "gain" means "profit":

     Income" ...  means "gain"  "derived" from,  and not accruing
     to, capital or labor or from both combined, including profit
     gained through  the sale  or conversion of capital, the gain
     not being  taxable until  realized, and, in such connection,
     "gain" means  profit or something of exchangeable value, and
     "derived"  means  proceeding  from  property,  severed  from
     capital,  however  invested  or  employed,  and  coming  in,
     received or drawn by taxpayer for his separate use, benefit,
     and disposal.

             [Staples v. U.S., District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania]
                                                [21 F. Supp. 737]


No gain, no income  --  no income, no tax:

     Income is  nothing more nor less than realized gain ....  It
     is  not   synonymous  with   receipts  ....    Whatever  may
     constitute  income,   therefore,  must  have  the  essential
     feature of  gain to the recipient ....  If there is no gain,
     there is no income.

               [Conner v. U.S., District Court, Houston Division]
                                              [303 F. Supp. 1187]


Wages and profits are two DIFFERENT things:

     There is a clear distinction between "profit" and "wages" or
     compensation for  labor.   Compensation for  labor cannot be
     regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.

                [Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858]


Payment for labor is NOT profit:

     Reasonable compensation  for labor  or services  rendered is
     not profit.

                        [Laureldale Cemetery  Assoc. v. Matthews]
                                 [345 Pa. 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 41 of 57


The meaning of "income" has been CONSISTENT in law:

     ... "Income"  has been  taken to mean the same thing as used
     in the  Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth
     Amendment and  in  the  various  revenue  acts  subsequently
     passed ....

                      [Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174]


Again, "income" has had the SAME MEANING in law:

     ... and  before the  1921 Act  this Court  had indicated ...
     what it  later held,  that "income,"  as used in the revenue
     acts taxing  income, adopted  since the  16th Amendment, has
     the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.  

                                   [Burnet v. Harmel, 287 US 103]


"Income" is NOT the same as "gross receipts":

     Constitutionally  the  only  thing  that  can  be  taxed  by
     Congress is  "income."   And the  tax  actually  imposed  by
     Congress has  been on  net income  as  distinct  from  gross
     income.   The tax  is not,  never has  been  and  could  not
     constitutionally be upon "gross receipts" ....

        [Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Hofferbert, USDC, Maryland]
                                     [102 Federal Supplement 902]


Try to find a principle that is better settled:

     Remember that  our source  is not  some "tax protest" group.
     Just about everything we are telling you comes from the U.S.
     Supreme Court.   It  would be  difficult, and perhaps impos-
     sible, in  our system  of jurisprudence, to find a principle
     better settled than the one we have been citing.

                          [Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Mt. Sinai Press]
                   [POB 1220, Alta Loma,  California 91701, 1988]


Other cases not cited here say the SAME THING:

     In addition  to the  cases cited  above, the  following also
     support and  affirm this definition of "income":  ... United
     States v.  Supplee-Biddle Hardware  Co., 265  US 189; United
     States v.  Phellis 257  US 156;   Miles v. Safe Deposit & T.
     Co., 259  US 247;   Irwin  v. Gavit  268 US 161;  Edwards v.
     Cuba R. Co., 268 US 628.

         [Irwin Schiff, The Great Income Tax Hoax, Freedom Books]
            [POB 5303, Hamden, Connecticut 06518, 1985, page 475]


Take these  citations to  your tax  attorney or CPA, and demand a
response.  Research assembled for you by:

                 Account for Better Citizenship
                      c/o General Delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 42 of 57


             [Text of First Published Advertisement]

Repeat these words, out loud, at least three times a day:

                       WE, THE PEOPLE CAN
                       ABOLISH INCOME TAX

Please join us in demanding the United States Congress to

                       TAKE THE FIRST STEP

to authorize  a full study to find other ways of funding the U.S.
government without direct taxes on personal income sources.

The I.R.S.  has already  conducted a  limited  study  of  several
alternatives and documented their findings at taxpayer expense.

We now  want to  condition all  public servants  to realize  that
personal income  taxes are  a horrible  scourge upon the economic
prosperity of all American citizens.  These taxes must stop.

When we, the people have the power to abolish slavery, to abolish
prohibition, and  to enact women's suffrage;  when we, the people
can declare  a national  holiday to  celebrate our Declaration of
Independence, then

     We, the people can refuse to elect Representatives who
     fail to advocate the abolition of federal income taxes.

It is  as simple  as ABC.   If  you are  a citizen and registered
voter, then  know that  you have  this power.  We, the people can
abolish an  entire system  of taxes  expressly prohibited  by the
U.S. Constitution itself (see Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4).

Your donation  will be  used to  purchase full-page  ads in major
newspapers throughout  the country,  advocating the  abolition of
federal taxes  on personal  income.  $1 from every citizen buys a
whole lot  of advertising!   To  this end,  we mutually pledge to
each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Please send your donations, and any letters of support, to:

                 Account for Better Citizenship
                      c/o General Delivery
                     San Rafael, California

We will  keep your  name, address,  and ALL  other identification
completely confidential UNLESS you authorize us in writing to use
it in our advertising.  We respect your right to privacy.

May you be prosperous beyond your wildest dreams!


Sincerely yours,            P.S. The mailing address of Congress:

                                 Congress of the United States
                                   House of Representatives
                                    Washington, D.C. 20515


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 43 of 57


/s/ John E. Trumane
Founder                      United we stand and divided we fall.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 44 of 57


                   Failures to Ratify the 16th Amendment
                 to the Constitution of the United States:
                         A Status Summary by State

                See  Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error Error
 State         Notes   #1    #2    #3    #4    #5    #6    #7    #8    #9
 ------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
 Alabama              YES   YES
 Arizona              YES   YES                                       YES
 Arkansas             YES   YES   YES                                 YES
 California           YES   YES                                       YES
 Colorado             YES                                             YES
 Connecticut    (10)                                      YES
 Delaware             YES   YES
 Florida        (11)                                      YES
 Georgia              YES   YES               YES         YES         YES
 Idaho                YES   YES         YES                           YES
 Illinois             YES   YES                                       YES
 Indiana              YES   YES                                       YES
 Iowa                 YES   YES                                       YES
 Kansas               YES   YES               YES   YES               YES
 Kentucky             YES   YES   YES                     YES         YES
 Louisiana            YES   YES                                       YES
 Maine                YES   YES                           YES         YES
 Maryland             YES   YES         YES                           YES
 Massachusetts        YES   YES                                       YES
 Michigan             YES                                             YES
 Minnesota            YES   YES                                       YES
 Mississippi          YES   YES                                       YES
 Missouri             YES               YES                           YES
 Montana              YES   YES                                       YES
 Nebraska             YES   YES                                       YES
 Nevada               YES   YES                                       YES
 New Hampshire        YES   YES
 New Jersey           YES   YES               YES
 New Mexico                                                           YES
 New York             YES   YES         YES         YES               YES
 North Carolina       YES   YES                                       YES
 North Dakota         YES   YES                                       YES
 Ohio                 YES   YES         YES                           YES
 Oklahoma             YES   YES                                       YES
 Oregon               YES   YES                                       YES
 Pennsylvania   (12)                                      YES
 Rhode Island   (13)                                      YES
 South Carolina       YES   YES                                       YES
 South Dakota         YES   YES         YES
 Tennessee            YES   YES                           YES         YES
 Texas                YES   YES                                       YES
 Utah           (14)                                            YES
 Vermont              YES   YES               YES                     YES
 Virginia       (15)                                            YES
 Washington           YES               YES                           YES
 West Virginia        YES   YES         YES                           YES
 Wisconsin            YES   YES
 Wyoming              YES   YES                                       YES


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 45 of 57


Description of Errors:

1.   Failure to concur in U. S. Senate Joint Resolution No. 40 in
     that various  changes were  made to the text of the official
     Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress.

2.   Failure to  follow  the  guidelines  for  the  return  of  a
     certified copy  of the  ratification action, as contained in
     Congressional Concurrent  Resolution No.  6, and as required
     by Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of 1878.

3.   Governor vetoed  the resolution  and the  State  Legislature
     failed to override the veto.

4.   Resolution was not submitted to the Governor for approval.

5.   State Senate failed to pass the resolution by a required 2/3
     majority.

6.   State Assembly  or House  failed to pass the resolution by a
     required 2/3 majority.

7.   State Senate failed to pass the resolution.

8.   State Assembly or House failed to pass the resolution.

9.   Other State constitutional violations not mentioned above.


(Source: The  Law That  Never Was   --   The  Fraud of  the  16th
Amendment and Personal Income Tax, by Bill Benson and M. J. 'Red'
Beckman, published  by Constitutional  Research Assoc.,  Box 550,
South Holland, IL 60473, April 1985)


Notes:

(10) The Senate  rejected the minority report of the committee on
     judiciary and federal relations recommending ratification of
     this amendment  on June  23, 1911,  by a  vote of  6 to  19.
     (Connecticut Senate Journal, 1911, pp. 1346-1348)

(11) Florida House passed H.J. Res. 192, ratifying this amendment
     on May  21, 1913,  by a  vote of  59 to  0.   (Florida House
     Journal,  1913,   p.  1686.)     The   Senate  committee  on
     constitution recommended  that the  resolution do  not pass.
     May 27, 1913.  (Florida Senate Journal, 1913, p. 1745.)

(12) The House  passed a joint resolution ratifying the sixteenth
     amendment  on  May  10,  1911,  by  a  vote  of  139  to  4.
     (Pennsylvania House  Journal, 1911,  pp.  2690-2691.)    The
     Senate referred  the joint  resolution to  the committee  on
     judiciary special,  where  it  lay.    (Pennsylvania  Senate
     Journal, 1911, p. 2162.)


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 46 of 57


(13) Senate resolution  refusing to  ratify  this  amendment  was
     concurred in  by House  April 29, 1910.  (Rhode Island House
     Journal, April 29, 1910.)

(14) The House  rejected this  amendment on  March 9,  1911, by a
     vote of  31 to 10.  (Utah House Journal, 1911, pp. 606-607.)
     The Senate  passed the resolution ratifying the amendment by
     a vote  of 12  to 2  on  February  17,  1911.  (Utah  Senate
     Journal, 1911, p. 256.)

(15) The Senate  ratified this  amendment by a vote of 19 to 5 on
     March 9,  1910.   (Virginia Senate  Journal, 1910,  pp. 651-
     652.)   The House  Journal, 1910,  does not  show that  this
     resolution ratifying the amendment ever came to a vote.

(Notes 10-15 from U.S. Senate Document No. 240, 71st Congress,
"Ratification of the Constitution and Amendments by the States")


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 47 of 57


Defense Strategy 1:
States Made Changes to the Text of the Resolution

     state           error1
     --------------- ------
 1   Alabama         YES
 2   Arizona         YES
 3   Arkansas        YES
 4   California      YES
 5   Colorado        YES
 6   Delaware        YES
 7   Georgia         YES
 8   Idaho           YES
 9   Illinois        YES
10   Indiana         YES
11   Iowa            YES
12   Kansas          YES
13   Kentucky        YES     [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   Louisiana       YES
15   Maine           YES
16   Maryland        YES
17   Massachusetts   YES
18   Michigan        YES
19   Minnesota       YES
20   Mississippi     YES
21   Missouri        YES
22   Montana         YES
23   Nebraska        YES
24   Nevada          YES
25   New Hampshire   YES
26   New Jersey      YES
27   New York        YES
28   North Carolina  YES
29   North Dakota    YES
30   Ohio            YES
31   Oklahoma        YES
32   Oregon          YES
33   South Carolina  YES
34   South Dakota    YES
35   Tennessee       YES
36   Texas           YES
37   Vermont         YES
38   Washington      YES
39   West Virginia   YES
40   Wisconsin       YES
41   Wyoming         YES     [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
42   Connecticut
43   Florida
44   New Mexico
45   Pennsylvania
46   Rhode Island
47   Utah
48   Virginia


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 48 of 57


Defense Strategy 2:
Various Violations of State Constitutions

     state           error9
     --------------- ------
 1   Arizona         YES
 2   Arkansas        YES
 3   California      YES
 4   Colorado        YES
 5   Georgia         YES
 6   Idaho           YES
 7   Illinois        YES
 8   Indiana         YES
 9   Iowa            YES
10   Kansas          YES
11   Kentucky        YES
12   Louisiana       YES
13   Maine           YES     [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   Maryland        YES
15   Massachusetts   YES
16   Michigan        YES
17   Minnesota       YES
18   Mississippi     YES
19   Missouri        YES
20   Montana         YES
21   Nebraska        YES
22   Nevada          YES
23   New Mexico      YES
24   New York        YES
25   North Carolina  YES
26   North Dakota    YES
27   Ohio            YES
28   Oklahoma        YES
29   Oregon          YES
30   South Carolina  YES
31   Tennessee       YES
32   Texas           YES
33   Vermont         YES
34   Washington      YES
35   West Virginia   YES
36   Wyoming         YES     [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
37   Alabama
38   Connecticut
39   Delaware
40   Florida
41   New Hampshire
42   New Jersey
43   Pennsylvania
44   Rhode Island
45   South Dakota
46   Utah
47   Virginia
48   Wisconsin


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 49 of 57


Defense Strategy 3:
States Failed to Follow Guidelines for Certified Copy

     state           error2
     --------------- ------
 1   Alabama         YES
 2   Arizona         YES
 3   Arkansas        YES
 4   California      YES
 5   Delaware        YES
 6   Georgia         YES
 7   Idaho           YES
 8   Illinois        YES
 9   Indiana         YES
10   Iowa            YES
11   Kansas          YES
12   Kentucky        YES
13   Louisiana       YES     [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   Maine           YES
15   Maryland        YES
16   Massachusetts   YES
17   Minnesota       YES
18   Mississippi     YES
19   Montana         YES
20   Nebraska        YES
21   Nevada          YES
22   New Hampshire   YES
23   New Jersey      YES
24   New York        YES
25   North Carolina  YES
26   North Dakota    YES
27   Ohio            YES
28   Oklahoma        YES
29   Oregon          YES
30   South Carolina  YES
31   South Dakota    YES
32   Tennessee       YES
33   Texas           YES
34   Vermont         YES
35   West Virginia   YES
36   Wisconsin       YES
37   Wyoming         YES     [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
38   Colorado
39   Connecticut
40   Florida
41   Michigan
42   Missouri
43   New Mexico
44   Pennsylvania
45   Rhode Island
46   Utah
47   Virginia
48   Washington


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 50 of 57


Defense Strategy 4:
Confirmed No's + Governor Vetoes + Errors 4 - 8

     state           error10 error3 error4 error5 error6 error7 error8
     --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
 1   Virginia        (15)                                       YES
 2   Utah            (14)                                       YES
 3   Rhode Island    (13)                                YES
 4   Pennsylvania    (12)                                YES
 5   Florida         (11)                                YES
 6   Connecticut     (10)                                YES
 7   Kentucky                YES                         YES
 8   Arkansas                YES
 9   New York                       YES           YES
10   Idaho                          YES
11   Maryland                       YES
12   Missouri                       YES
13   Ohio                           YES
                    [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   South Dakota                   YES
15   Washington                     YES
16   West Virginia                  YES
17   Kansas                                YES    YES
18   Georgia                               YES           YES
19   New Jersey                            YES
20   Vermont                               YES
21   Maine                                               YES
22   Tennessee                                           YES
                    [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23   Alabama
24   Arizona
25   California
26   Colorado
27   Delaware
28   Illinois
29   Indiana
30   Iowa
31   Louisiana
32   Massachusetts
33   Michigan
34   Minnesota
35   Mississippi
36   Montana
37   Nebraska
38   Nevada
39   New Hampshire
40   New Mexico
41   North Carolina
42   North Dakota
43   Oklahoma
44   Oregon
45   South Carolina
46   Texas
47   Wisconsin
48   Wyoming


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 51 of 57


Defense Strategy 5:
Failed House/Senate + Failed 2/3 + Vetoes and not Submitted to Governor

     state           error7 error8 error5 error6 error3 error4
     --------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
 1   Georgia         YES           YES
 2   Kentucky        YES                         YES
 3   Connecticut     YES
 4   Florida         YES
 5   Maine           YES
 6   Pennsylvania    YES
 7   Rhode Island    YES
 8   Tennessee       YES
 9   Utah                   YES
10   Virginia               YES
11   Kansas                        YES    YES
12   New Jersey                    YES
13   Vermont                       YES
                    [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   New York                             YES           YES
15   Arkansas                                    YES
16   Idaho                                              YES
17   Maryland                                           YES
18   Missouri                                           YES
19   Ohio                                               YES
20   South Dakota                                       YES
21   Washington                                         YES
22   West Virginia                                      YES
                    [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23   Alabama
24   Arizona
25   California
26   Colorado
27   Delaware
28   Illinois
29   Indiana
30   Iowa
31   Louisiana
32   Massachusetts
33   Michigan
34   Minnesota
35   Mississippi
36   Montana
37   Nebraska
38   Nevada
39   New Hampshire
40   New Mexico
41   North Carolina
42   North Dakota
43   Oklahoma
44   Oregon
45   South Carolina
46   Texas
47   Wisconsin
48   Wyoming


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 52 of 57


Defense Strategy 6:
Confirmed No's + Governor Vetoes + Not Submitted to Governor

     state           error10 error3 error4 error5 error6 error7 error8
     --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
 1   Virginia        (15)                                       YES
 2   Utah            (14)                                       YES
 3   Rhode Island    (13)                                YES
 4   Pennsylvania    (12)                                YES
 5   Florida         (11)                                YES
 6   Connecticut     (10)                                YES
 7   Kentucky                YES                         YES
 8   Arkansas                YES
 9   New York                       YES           YES
10   Idaho                          YES
11   Maryland                       YES
12   Missouri                       YES
13   Ohio                           YES
                    [number required to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14   South Dakota                   YES
15   Washington                     YES
16   West Virginia                  YES
17   Kansas                                YES    YES
18   Georgia                               YES           YES
19   New Jersey                            YES
20   Vermont                               YES
21   Maine                                               YES
22   Tennessee                                           YES
                    [number available to defeat Amendment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23   Alabama
24   Arizona
25   California
26   Colorado
27   Delaware
28   Illinois
29   Indiana
30   Iowa
31   Louisiana
32   Massachusetts
33   Michigan
34   Minnesota
35   Mississippi
36   Montana
37   Nebraska
38   Nevada
39   New Hampshire
40   New Mexico
41   North Carolina
42   North Dakota
43   Oklahoma
44   Oregon
45   South Carolina
46   Texas
47   Wisconsin
48   Wyoming


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 53 of 57


REGISTERED U.S. MAIL:                   c/o General Delivery
Return Receipt Requested                San Rafael, California

                                        May 22, 1991

Rep. Dan Rostenkowski
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Postal Zone 20515/tdc

Dear Rep. Rostenkowski:

With this  letter I  formally petition you for redress of a major
legal grievance  which I  now have with the federal government of
the United States of America.

As you  must already know from copies of correspondence addressed
by me  to Rep.  Barbara Boxer and forwarded to you by me and also
by her  office, the  material evidence in my possession indicates
that the  16th Amendment, the so-called income tax amendment, was
never lawfully ratified.  This evidence indicates 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.
I remind you that there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

My previous  petitions to  Rep. Barbara  Boxer are dated December
24, 1990;   April  15, 1991;   and  May 3, 1991.  Copies of those
petitions are  again enclosed  and included  by reference in this
formal petition to you.

Please understand  that I take Rep. Boxer's referral to you of my
original petition to her, dated 12/24/90, as prima facie evidence
that you  are, in  fact, in  the chain  of  government  officials
responsible for administrative due process in this matter.

It is  for this reason that 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 this chain of administrative due process.

Thank you  very much  for your  consideration in  this  important
matter, which  by now  has affected many millions of Americans in
so many ways.


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 54 of 57


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane, Founder

Account for Better Citizenship

enclosures:  copies of petitions to Rep. Boxer

copies:  Rep. Barbara Boxer
         interested colleagues
         files

                             #  #  #


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 55 of 57


                          INCORPORATION

     Because the  issues discussed  in  said  appendix  are  very

similar to  the issues  expected to  arise in  the instant  case,

particularly  the  failed  ratification  of  the  so-called  16th

amendment, Defendant  hereby incorporates  by reference all facts

and laws  as cited  therein, as  if the same were set forth fully

herein.

                          VERIFICATION

I, Vance  E. Knudson,  Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of

perjury, under  the laws of the United States of America, without

(outside) the  "United States",  that the  attached documents are

true and  correct copies  of the  originals, to  the best  of  My

current information,  knowledge, and  belief,  so  help  Me  God,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


Dated: ______________________________


Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Vance Knudson
_____________________________________
Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 56 of 57


                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Vance  E. Knudson, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of

perjury, under  the laws of the United States of America, without

the "United  States," that  I am  at least  18 years  of  age,  a

Citizen of  one of  the United  States of  America,  and  that  I

personally served the following document(s):

                   TENTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
                   MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
             Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence;
                  Full Faith and Credit Clause

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

class United  States Mail,  with  postage  prepaid  and  properly

addressed to the following:


SALLY R. JOHNSON
Office of U.S. Attorney
487 Federal Building
100 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln [zip code exempt]
NEBRASKA STATE

ROBERT D. METCALFE
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
c/o POB 7238, Ben Franklin Station
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


Dated:  __________________________________


/s/ Vance Knudson
__________________________________________
Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]


      Tenth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice:
                          Page 57 of 57


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Knudson