InfoTelesys Lawsuit: I. CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED /
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED
Forty Eighth,
Forty-ninth, Fiftieth and Fifty-second Claim For Relief - Treason,
Fraud, Extortion And Racketeering - Tax
PLAINTIFFS:
Clive Boustred
DEFENDANTS:
FRED KEELEY/Fred Kelley/County of Santa Cruz Treasurer – Tax Collector
ALLAN GREENSPAN/Allan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Bank and the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
SHAREHOLDERS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK/ Shareholders of the Federal
Reserve Bank
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Government of the County of Santa Cruz
Government of the State of California
Government of the United States of America
Jon Doe’s, 1 to n.
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
On multiple dates, in the above named Judicial
District, the crimes of TREASON, FRAUD, EXTORTION and RACKETEERING, in
violation of the Constitution of The United States of America Article 1
Section 2, and of the 9th, 10th Amendment, was
committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully
commit TREASON, FRAUD, EXTORTION and RACKETEERING against PLAINTIFF by
unlawfully taxing in violation of the Constitution of the United States
of America. By committing said acts and by Failure of Consideration,
DEFENDANTS committed TREASON and violated PLAINTIFFS Civil Rights.
Fred Keeley/County of Santa Cruz Treasurer – Tax
Collector went as far as to charge PLAINTIFFS tax on Federally Managed
Waterways for a vessel that never existed that could not have been on
any land.
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 2 does not
preclude taxation it dictates that tax be uniform for everyone, except
Indians, and apportioned equally across all the States:
"..Representatives and direct Taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States which may be included within this
Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined
by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three
fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within
three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United
States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as
they shall by Law direct."
Santa Cruz County Tax Collector, the State of
California and the IRS violated PLAINTIFFS Constitutionally protected
right in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution by taxing
PLAINTIFFS in violation of said Constitutional law.
The Federal Government had been given only 18 to 20
powers under the Constitution it is a "Limited Government". The 9th and
10th Amendments specifically retain to people of the States Sovereign
status and their rights therein and specifically preclude the Federal
Government from delegating any authority that is not specifically
delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The
Constitution provides no specified authority to the Federal Government
to unevenly tax.
DEFENDANTS have unlawfully levied taxes based on
their claim that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was
ratified and is lawful when the 16th Amendment was neither
ratified nor could it be lawful without repealing Article 1 Section 2 of
the U.S. Constitution. DEFENDANTS committed TREASON and exceeded their
authority, collecting taxes that they were not lawfully entitled to
collect and violating one of the core and key constructs to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
DAMAGES
As a proximate consequence of the willful and
malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained
extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including all
the taxes DEFENDANTS and their co-conspirators have extracted from
PLAINTIFFS.
AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are
incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following
AUTHORITIES:
Constitution of the United States of America,
Article 1, Section 2: "..Representatives and direct Taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States which may be included within this
Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined
by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three
fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within
three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United
States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as
they shall by Law direct."
Constitution of the United States of America,
Amendment 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.”
U.S. Constitution 10th Amendment: “The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.”
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution
are null and void." --Malbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever
commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels,
commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a
principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if
directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the
United States, is punishable as a principal.
After an exhaustive year long search of legislative
records in 48 sovereign States conducted by Bill Benson, (Alaska &
Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913). the only
record of the 16th Amendment ever having been confirmed was a fraudulent
proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February
25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never
stated that it was lawfully ratified. Bill Benson's has an excellent
website, support him: The Law That Never Was
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/ included herein by reference in
addition to said proofs on said website and book.
According to Article 1, Section 9 of the
Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal
Government to directly tax "We the People" in their property, wages,
salaries, or earnings. U.S. Supreme Court Judges repeatedly rejected any
claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on
direct taxes: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, The
Supreme Court ruled that the 16th "created no new power of taxation" and
that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any
direct taxation of individuals". This and other similar cases have
never been overturned.
An argument often made by judges attempting to
ignore the fact of the failure to ratify the 16th, is that precedence
under Common Law now exists because the IRS has been mugging the public
for so long and this somehow legalizes the IRS and the local County Tax
collector. However, the U.S. Constitution is higher law than the
precedence of Common Law, which in itself represents the will of the
people and not the will of the government. Article I, Section 2 of the
Constitution dictates that the IRS and the local County Tax collector
are collecting tax unlawfully.
Record of Failed Ratification of 16th Amendment As
Recorded By Secretary Of State, Officer of the Solicitor, dated February
25, 1913 Exhibits CD EXHIBITS 3\NO-16TH\1913_02_25 office of solicitor
pages 001.jpg to 021.jpg – Philander C. Knox’s Fraudulent claim is
included in said evidence directory under the filed
Fraud-Philander-C-Knox-Fraud-1.jpg, Philander-C-Knox-Fraud-2.jpg and
Philander-C-Knox-Fraud-3.jpg:
The following Chart illustrates the blatant and
absolute failure to ratify the 16th Amendment pursuant to
said Office of the Solicitor’s report and State records.
KEY TO FAILURE TO RATIFY
CHART:
01- Not ratified by state
legislature, and so reported
02- Not ratified by state
legislature, but reported as ratified
03- Missing or incomplete
evidence of ratification, but reported as ratified
04- Failure of Governor or
other official to sign, although required by State Constitution
05- Other violation of
State Constitution in ratification process
06- Other procedural
irregularity making ratification doubtful
07- Approval, but with
change in wording, accepted as ratification of original version
08- Approval, but with
change in spelling, accepted as ratification of original version
09- Approval, but with
change in capitalization, accepted as ratification of original version
10- Approval, but with
change in punctuation, accepted as ratification of original version
|
State |
01 |
02 |
03 |
04 |
05 |
06 |
07 |
08 |
09 |
10 |
|
Alabama |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Arizona |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
Arkansas |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
California |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
Connecticut |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Idaho |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Illinois |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Indiana |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Iowa |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Kansas |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Kentucky |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Louisiana |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
Maine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
Maryland |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Massachusetts |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
Michigan |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Minnesota |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Missouri |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Montana |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
Nebraska |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Nevada |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
New Hampshire |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey |
|
|
|
| | 
