Author: wtp
Last saved by: Mike XXX
Company: Dell Computer Corporation

2458 Ridge Road
Queensbury, NY 12804

September 21, 2003

Mrs. Dale Hart 			             VIA FACSIMILE (202) 927-1399	
Deputy Commissioner
Small Business/Self-Employed
Internal Revenue Service
5000 Ellin Rd.  SAL:S Cubicle 3011 
Lanham, Maryland 20706 

Dear Mrs. Hart,

As you undoubtedly know, with the active support and participation of tens of thousands of Americans, the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. has submitted to the IRS, the DOJ and to every member of Congress, a Petition for Redress of Grievances, including hundreds of specific questions regarding the origin and operation of the income tax system. 

According to the New York Times (September 17, 2003, “To Thwart Fraud, I.R.S. and States Will Share Leads,” By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON), you were quoted as saying our questions have been answered on the IRS website and in IRS publications.

What follows are but eighteen of the 537 questions included in the Petition. I cannot find these questions or answers to them on the IRS website or in any IRS publication. I respectfully request you to identify where on the IRS website or in an IRS publication I can find the specific answers to these specific questions. 

Question 52(a).  Admit that the IRS has been directed to maintain a system of financial records on all federal judges, all IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agents, and all U.S. Attorneys, which records cannot be accessed by the subject(s) under the FOIA or Privacy Act. ( See  Treasury System of Records 46.002 as identified in Treasury/IRS Privacy Act of 1974 Resource Document #6372) 

Question 53a.  Admit that 40 U.S.C. §255 identifies the only method by which the federal government may acquire legislative jurisdiction over a geographic area within the outer limits of a state of the Union, which is by state cession in writing. (See 40 U.S.C. §255.) 

Question 56.  Admit that the Report [“Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States,” Part II entitled “Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States” June, 1957] makes the following statements:

a.  “The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place.”  (See Report, p. 41.) 

b.  “It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions,”  (See Report, p. 45.) 

c.  “The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,”  (See Report, p. 46.) 

d.  “On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government.”  (See Report, p.107.) 

Question 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.   (See Knox’s Proclamation) 

Question 77.  Admit that in the documents possessed by the Archives of the United 
States, there are no certified copies of the resolutions ratifying the 16th Amendment by California and Kentucky.  (See National Book of state ratification documents: California and Kentucky)  

Question 78a.   Admit that the Kentucky Senate voted 22 to 9 against ratification of the 16^th Amendment. (See Kentucky Senate Journal) 

Question 94b.	Admit that the proposed 16^th (income tax) Amendment was never properly and legally approved by the Georgia State Senate. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 81-88) 

Question 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. (See The Law That Never Was) (Exhibit: Volume I)

Question 94d.  Admit that the state of Tennessee violated Article II, Section 32 of the Tennessee Constitution by denying the people an opportunity to vote for their state legislators between the time the proposed 16^th  (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was submitted to the Tennessee legislature and the time the legislature voted to approve the amendment. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 213-217) 
	
Question 127a.  Admit that the United States Supreme Court defined "income" to mean the following:
“…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition of ‘income,’ 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.” (See Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918) (emphasis added) 

 “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 populations, as prescribed by the Constitution.  The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation…Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 55 L.Ed. 389, 31 Sup.Ct.Rep. 342, Ann. Cas.” [See Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414, 58 L.Ed. 285, 34 Sup.Ct. 136 (1913)] 

127d.  Admit that individuals as defined in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and in 26 CFR §1.1441-1 are not federal corporations, and therefore cannot have "profit" or "gain" as constitutionally defined above.(See 26 CFR §1.1441-1) 

128.   Admit that in the absence of gain, there is no “income.”  (See Stratton’s Indep. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913);  Doyle v. Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179 (1920);  So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918);  Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920);  Merchant’s Loan v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921).) 

131.   Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (concurring opinion of Justice Fields) (1883), that:

It has been well said that, “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

133.	Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1914) that:

The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property--partaking of the nature of each--is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.

144.	Admit that when an employer pays the employee the amount agreed upon by their contract, there is no excess amount realized over the adjusted basis, and thus no gain under Section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code.  (See 26 U.S.C. 1001.) 

145.	Admit that if one has no gain, one would have no income in a constitutional sense.  (See 26 U.S.C. 64) (26 U.S.C.1001) 

146.	Admit that if one has no income, one would have no “gross income.” 

147.	Admit that in the absence of “gross income,” one would not be required to make a return under Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code.  (See 26 U.S.C. 6012.) 

I would appreciate an early response to this letter.

Sincerely,

________________
Robert L. Schulz

Cc:   Mr. David Cay Johnston            
        C/o: The New York Times
        229 West 43rd St.
        New York, NY 10036