----- Original Message -----

Dear Mr. Schulz,

� a recent federal court decision �completely refutes any challenge to the legality of the 16th Amendment.   In sum, this case, Walker v United States, in combination with other judicial rulings grants Congress �complete control of the entire Constitution itself. �  the power of Congress is now unlimited.

Does this mean Congress has power over judges?   Over the Prez and armed forces?   If we had power over Congress, then this could be a good thing.

� the repeal of the 16th Amendment has received more applications for a convention from the states than any other subject in the history of this nation. In total, 39 states have applied to Congress for a convention to repeal the 16^th Amendment. As Congress has not acted to accept any recessions of these applications, it is clear these applications remain in effect to this date. (Please see pages 689, 776 in the overlength brief referred to in the accompanying court order for more specific information. This brief can be downloaded at website www.article5.org.) The total of 39 states is at least one more state than is required for ratification of an amendment repealing the 16th Amendment and five more states that are required for a convention to be called for that purpose.

So a Repeal here seems to be a pretty popular idea.

 � until the ruling by Chief Judge Coughenour in Walker v United States it was universal opinion, � that it was obligatory Congress call a
convention if the proper number of states applied�  However, because there had been a judicial ruling in this matter this universal �has now been replaced by an official government policy entirely contrary to that opinion.

Talk about legislating from the bench!    Perhaps Coughenour could benefit from a petition similar to the one circulating about the 5 Supremacists in the Kelo v. New London decision.    http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/     Impeachment Petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/lp001/petition.html

That basic policy is Congress may ignore any directive of the Constitution imposed on it by the word "shall."   In short, Congress or any agency created by it is not bound by the Constitution. In his ruling Judge Coughenour altered the meaning of the word "shall" from its previous obligatory meaning to that of an option on the part of the government.

THIS is how some judges legislate from the bench!  

And how easy it is to do an end-run around the Constitution, or ANY law, ordinance, statute, code, etc.   You just capriciously invent a conveniently different meaning from the original intent when the law went into effect.

 Indeed, under the Walker v United States ruling, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing an "amendment" to the Constitution with the issue never even being submitted to the states or people for ratification.
Brrrr.   Frosty indeed.

Therefore, if the IRS states the 16th Amendment is legal, that agency as a representative of Congress is correct regardless of any facts to
the contrary.

Hold on there, Nellie.  Exactly when did IRS become a "representative of Congress?"  

And yes, I have direct personal experience (although not w/the IRS on this) of Facts and Law not mattering.

Thus, any "right" granted to the people in the Constitution from voting, to free speech, to trial rights are totally at the discretion of the government as they all are expressed by the word "shall" in the Constitution and thus are now merely options controlled entirely by the national government.

Very conveniently different meaning of a term from when law first went into effect. 

Congress approved of the legal tactics used by the local United States Attorney to achieve this goal.
None of the officials contacted have refuted a single allegation made in that letter.