EXHIBIT AAA

The CRS Report for Congress, Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax (Updated May 7, 2001) completely fails to address ANY of the specific questions raised in WTP’s ongoing Petition for Redress.

The CRS Report for Congress, Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax (Updated May 7, 2001) has a list of the questions it addresses. It’s list of questions serves as the report’s table of contents. Using that list/table of contents as a guide, WTP shows here that the CRS Report does not come close to answering our questions.

Our Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the federal income tax included 538 questions that were delivered, on March 16, 2002, to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey, and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. A copy of the questions and transmittal letter are attached to the letter from Bob Schulz to Daniel Bryant as Exhibit G

CRS Report Question #1

What Specific Limitations On The Power Of Congress To Tax Are Found In

The Constitution?

Not one of our questions are answered in this section of the CRS report, which merely repeats some of the language of Article I, Sections 8 and 9 and provides some historical information. No court cases are cited.

CRS Report Question #2

Is The Federal Income Tax A Direct Or Indirect Tax?

Question #2 of the CRS report, merely provides a brief narrative on the 16^th Amendment and the Pollack and Brushaber decisions.

As noted above, our Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the federal income tax included 15 lines of inquiry and a total of 538 questions and were delivered, on March 16, 2002, to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey, and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. A copy of the questions and transmittal letter are attached hereto as Exhibit F.

One line of inquiry is titled, “SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.” It includes 113 Questions that are numbered as follows: 66-69, 62a-62d, 63, 63a-63e, 64-65, 70-74, 74a-74b, 75-78,78a, 79-94, 94a-94oo, 95-105, 105a-105g, 106-107, 11 0-110a, and 111 –121.

Aside from the CRS Report’s mere dismissal of the Constitutional necessity that all federal taxes, must be EITHER direct OR indirect, none of our substantive questions are answered under section 2 of the CRS Report.

For instance, the following is a sampling of our questions that relate to the subject matter of Section 2 of the CRS report but are not addressed and not answered in Section 2 or in any other section of the CRS report. Please note that the Eisner case was decided after the Brushaber case.[1]

101. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court discarded the notion that a direct tax could be relieved from apportionment, because to so hold would destroy the two great classifications of taxes.

102. Admit that the Union Pacific Railroad was a United States Corporation located in the Utah Territory.

103. Admit that the privilege of operating as a corporation can be taxed as an excise.

104. Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held a tax on income was a direct tax, but could be imposed without apportionment because the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

105. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Eisner:

a. The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, under the Act of August 27, 1894, c. 349, section 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553, it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the States according to population, as required by Art. I, section 2, c1.3, and section 9, cl.4, of the original Constitution.

b. Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income. (Citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. at 17-19) (other citations omitted).

c. A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this 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 over ridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

d. In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper 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.

105a. Admit that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Sims case, declared that wages and salaries are property.

105b. Admit that the last time the U.S. Supreme Court addressed

the question of whether the income tax was a direct tax or an

indirect tax was in the Eisner case.

105c. Admit that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Eisner, declared the

income tax to be a direct tax.

105d. Admit that the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the Parker case, ruled that, “The sixteenth Amendment merely eliminates the requirement that the direct income tax be apportioned among the states…The sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax.”

105e. Admit that the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the Coleman case, held that an argument that the income tax was an excise tax was frivolous on its face and that the court declared, “ The power thus long predates the Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment requirement.”

105f. Admit that the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the Francisco case, held that, “The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a direct tax….”

105g. Admit that the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the Lawson case, ruled that, “The Sixteenth Amendment removed any need to apportion income taxes among the states that otherwise would have been required by Article I, Section 9, clause 4.”

106. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Second Circuit take the position that the income tax is an indirect tax.

107. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Fifth

Circuit take the position that the income tax is a direct tax.

110. Admit that when a law is ambiguous, it is unconstitutional

and cannot be enforced under the "void for vagueness doctrine" because it violates due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as described by the Supreme Court in the following decisions:

-- Origin of the doctrine (See Lanzetta v. New Jersey,

306 U.S. 451) (Ex. 59)

-- Development of the doctrine
(See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, and Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223). (Ex. 59a) (Ex. 59b) (Ex. 59c)

110a. Admit that the "void for vagueness doctrine" of the Supreme Court was described in U.S. v. DeCadena as follows:

"The essential purpose of the "void for vagueness doctrine" with respect to interpretation of a criminal statute, is to warn individuals of the criminal consequences of their conduct. ... Criminal statutes which fail to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law."

CRS Report Question # 3

What Does The Court Mean When It States That The Income Tax Is In The

Nature Of An Excise Tax?

Not one of our questions is even remotely touched on in this section of the CRS report, which consists of just two very short paragraphs and provides Mr. Lucky’s (unsupported) definition of an “excise tax.”

CRS Report Question # 4

Was the Sixteenth Amendment Properly Ratified?

None of our substantive questions are answered under section 4 of the CRS Report.

For instance, the following is a sampling of our questions that relate to the subject matter of section 4 of the CRS report but are not addressed and not answered in section 4 or in any other section of the CRS report.

74b. Admit that Philander Knox declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, naming the following 38 states as having approved it: Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, Montana, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, North Dakota, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, Maine, Tennessee, Arkansas, Wisconsin, New York, South Dakota, Arizona, Minnesota, Louisiana, Delaware, Wyoming, New Jersey and New Mexico.

94b. Admit that the proposed 16^th (income tax) Amendment was

never properly and legally approved by the Georgia State Senate.

94c. Admit that the actions taken by the state legislatures of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, in acting on the proposed 16^th Amendment, were violative of certain provisions of their state constitutions, which were in effect AND CONTROLLING at the time those states purportedly ratified the 16^th Amendment.

94d. Admit that the state of Tennessee violated Article II, Section