The complaint in Walker v Members of Congress filed in District Court can be read below or you may use this bookmark to go directly to the list of members of Congress named individually in the suit. While some changes in membership have occurred since filing, leaving office does not relieve an individual of responsibility for any criminal act they may have committed as an officeholder. Further, any new members are required to take the same oath of office as those listed. As these new members also have refused to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as required, they are as guilty as those listed.
United States District Court,
Western District of Washington
|
Bill Walker, Plaintiff, vs. Members of Congress of the United States As Individuals and in their Official Capacities; John W. Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, In his Official Capacity; Mark W. Everson, IRS Commissioner, In his Official Capacity, Defendants |
Complaint |
Members of Congress and other members of the Government have vetoed provisions of the Constitution in violation of federal criminal and civil laws. This suit seeks redress for these acts.
Service is effected under FRCP Rule 4(i)(2)(B) and Rule 4(e) employing Rule 4(d) as described in 4(e). Service shall completed by Plaintiff within Rule 4(m) time limits.
This complaint addresses violations of the Constitution by members of the Congress of the United States listed individually in attached Complaint Appendix.[1] (Except as noted, these accused individuals shall hereinafter be referred to as “Congress”). This complaint seeks mandamus relief to compel Congress to obey the explicit written language of the Constitution where indisputable evidence demonstrates they have refused to do so. Such refusal violates federal civil and criminal law. This complaint seeks civil and criminal penalties against the defendants. As a result of these constitutional and federal civil and criminal law violations, Congress has extorted money from the Plaintiff by collecting federal income tax the Plaintiff is not legally obligated to pay. Mr. Snow and Mr. Everson, in their official capacities, have obeyed the instructions of Congress to acquire Plaintiff’s money via the government agencies they administer and are therefore named as defendants. This complaint seeks reparation of these monies by writ of execution against defendants.
In 1776 the people of the American colonies acting through representatives “in Congress assembled” declared independence from Great Britain by issuing the Declaration of Independence. The people asserted “the right of the people to alter to abolish any form of government” which is “destructive” to their “inalienable” rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as the basis of sovereignty for the United States. In 1783, Great Britain signed the Treaty of Paris “acknowledging” the sovereignty of the people of the United States.
In 1787 a constitutional convention, authorized by the Congress of the United States, drafted the Constitution of the United States of America. Upon ratification by the thirteen states, the Constitution became “the supreme law of the land.” It is axiomatic the written language of Constitution as “supreme law of the land” creates, constitutes and structures “our constitutional form of government.” This fact is acknowledged and reinforced by treaties, court rulings, federal criminal and civil law, history and common sense.
Part of “our constitutional form of government” is the Article V amendatory process. This article articulates two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution: by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by the calling of a convention to propose amendments by Congress upon the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The convention call described as “peremptory” by the Founders has been recognized as such by Supreme Court rulings. This fact precludes any discretion or option on the part of Congress not to call a convention when required to do so by the proper number of applying states.
Congress has publicly advocated it can veto this clause of the Constitution to obtain dictatorial control of Article V and the Constitution. Such dictatorial power clearly is not “our constitutional form of government.” Congress therefore is guilty of publicly advocating “overthrowing our constitutional form of government.” In assuming office, defendants are required to take an oath of loyalty under 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 5 U.S.C. 3333. Such advocation violates 5 U.S.C. 7311 (1) (2), Loyalty and Striking, a civil offense; 18 U.S.C. 241, Conspiracy against Rights, a criminal offense; 18 U.S.C. 242, Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, a criminal offense; 18 U.S.C. 1621, Perjury, a criminal offense; 18 U.S.C. 1918, Disloyalty against the Government, a criminal offense and 18 U.S.C. 2383, Insurrection, a criminal offense.
Congress’ criminal refusal to call a convention prevents adoption of several proposed amendments by the states. Among them is repeal of the 16th Amendment. A sufficient number of applying states exceeding the number required for ratification of this amendment can only mean adoption of repeal is a constitutional certainty. By withholding a constitutionally obligated official action, Congress continues to collect income tax for its own political purposes. Were the Constitution obeyed, income tax would not be collected. Withholding an official action where the law (in this case the Constitution) demands that action be executed so as to acquire monies constitutes criminal extortion as well as constitutional violation. Federal income tax law demands revenue employees of the Government, which includes Congress, only collect income tax “authorized by law.” As the amendment process to terminate income tax has been illegally prevented by defendants in violation of the Constitution and no act of the Government is legal unless it satisfies all of the Constitution, no such authorization exists. Congress has committed criminal extortion on all citizen paying income tax including Plaintiff. Recovery of illegally collected income tax upon Plaintiff is permitted under 26 U.S.C. 7422 et. al. and reparation of $7333.00 by writ of execution is sought for Plaintiff. In committing extortion, Congress has violated: 18 U.S.C. 872, Extortion, a criminal offense and 26 U.S.C. 7214 (1), Unlawful revenue acts by officials, a civil and criminal offense. In addition defendants Everson and Snow have attempted to intimidate Plaintiff so as to prevent his reporting these criminal violations to this court. They have violated 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 1512 (b) (3), (c) (2), and (e) and appropriate redress is sought.
The Supreme Court has ruled a convention must be comprised of “deliberative elected bodies” allowing the people to exercise their sovereign, “inalienable” right to “alter or abolish” through these delegates. Hence, elections of delegates is obligatory once the conditions established by the Constitution are satisfied i.e., the proper number of applying states. By its illegal criminal and civil acts Congress has prevented the elections of delegates.
Plaintiff is a registered voter in the state of Washington and therefore eligible to vote in such an election of delegates. Congress’ actions prevent the Plaintiff from voting in such an election to elect delegates. Congress has therefore violated federal election laws: 42 U.S.C. 1973i(a), Failure or Refusal to permit Casting or Tabulation of Vote and 42 U.S.C. 1973j(c), Conspiring to Violate or Interfere with Secured Rights. Plaintiff also seeks redress under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a civil action, Deprivation of Rights including deprivation of voting rights and right to alter or abolish the government through established procedures specified in the Constitution.
As Plaintiff intends to seek the office of delegate to a convention he seeks redress against Congress under 42 U.S.C. 1985 (1), Preventing officer from performing [his] duties. Plaintiff maintains Congress’ illegal criminal and civil actions have “prevented…any person from accepting or holding any office…under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof”. As the office of delegate to a convention to propose amendments is authorized by the Constitution, it holds equal footing with other federal offices created by the Constitution. It thus falls under the terms of this federal law. Preventing a legal election of delegates to hold or accept office thus violates this law.
This complaint seeks relief from the court to: (1) refer for prosecution all criminal violations against the defendants so noted in this complaint; (2) restore the supremacy of the Constitution and the amendatory process by issuance of a Writ of Mandamus against the defendants; (3) issue a Writ of Execution for reparation for monies extorted from the Plaintiff by defendants and; (4) to take all other actions which the court deems necessary and proper against the defendants in this matter.
Presented By:
Dated this 17th day of September, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Bill Walker, pro se
|