Date - 

Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall  
Justice Building 
Topeka, KS 

Dear Ms. Stovall: 

As County Commissioners under oath to support the Constitution for the United States of America, we are concerned over what we perceive to be unconstitutional actions being taken by the Federal government.  Perhaps our concern was best voiced by the Republican governors 1994 comment saying "Federal action has exceeded the clear bounds of its jurisdiction under the Constitution and thus violated rights guaranteed to the people." 

It's clear this "Federal action" is being driven by our nation's membership in the United Nations and the treaties spawned by that organization. We find this alarming for two reasons. 
1. The Federal government admitted in PL 313 that the U.N. Charter is unconstitutional by saying: "Whereas the existing state of war....and the termination thereof...would render certain statutory provisions inoperative.... Whereas some of these statutory provisions are needed to insure the ...capacity of the United states to support the United Nations....it is desirable to extend these statutory provisions."  These "statutory provisions" are the Emergency Powers legislation this nation has been under since March 9, 1993.  

2. In U. S. Senate Report 93-549 dated 1973, we find: "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency...For 40 years (now over 65 years), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency...."  

As elected officials, we not only have a lawful duty to uphold our oath but also a moral one to those who placed their trust in us.  For this reason, we ask that you file the attached lawsuit or one similar thereto as one step in putting a halt to the unconstitutional actions of the Federal government.  

Sincerely,  

1 attachment - sample lawsuit 

Chairman 
Dougals County, Kansas Commission 
******************* 

The proposed lawsuit challenging the U.N. Charter's Constitutionality was prepared by Judge (rtd) J. J. Boesel.  It follows in its entirety. 

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  

        WASHINGTON, D.C.  

THE STATE OF __________________________EX REL  

                                 ______________________  
      CASE NO._______________  
    ATTORNEY GENERAL  
        RELATOR  

                 Vs  

Mr. Butros Butros Ghali,  
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS 
UNITED NATIONS BUILDING, 759 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA 
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017 
RESPONDENT 

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, INJUNCTIVE 
AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 
This action arises under the United States Constitution; under Articles III, V, and VI, as to the First Cause of Action; under the XVI Amendment as to the Second Cause of Action; under Article I, Section 8 and the doctrine of separation of powers, together with Article III, Section 2 as to the Third Cause of Action; and under Article I, Section 8 as to the Fourth Cause of Action.  

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

1.  The matter in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This Court has jurisdiction over the action under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and Article VI of the Constitution in that it is a case involving a treaty. 

2.  Relator is the duly elected Attorney General of the State of _____________________. Relator challenges Federal spending for an unconstitutional purpose.  Relator says that Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, being made an "integral" part of the United Nations treaty by Article 92 of the latter, is in conflict with and changes Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, in that said Article 36 transfers to the International Court of Justice, judicial power over "... all legal disputes concerning the interpretation of a treaty ..." (Article 36 A.2 (a) ). 
Relator says such judicial power has, by Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, been lodged in the U.S. Judiciary.  Relator says that not only is Article 36 made an "integral" part of the Treaty by Article 92 thereof, but there are Seventy (70) provisions in the Statute of the International Court, or Sixty-three percent (63%) of the One Hundred Ten (110) Treaty provisions which are so interwoven and interdependent with the UN Treaty, that the two cannot be separated.  Accordingly, relator says that the void character of Article 36 of the Statute renders the entire treaty void.  

3.  Further, Congress has, in pursuance of such void treaty, by Title 22, U.S. Code Section 287 (e), authorized the disbursing officers of the U.S. Treasury department to continue making payments of U.S. tax dollars to cover annual UN assessments against the United States.  Relator says the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that "... there is nothing in this language (Article VI, U.S. Constitution) which intimates that treaties and laws passed pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. "  Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1, (1957) 
Accordingly, relator says that since the treaty is void, Title 22, U.S. Code Section 287 (e), passed pursuant to said treaty, is likewise void and therefore, the disbursing officers of the U.S. Treasury have absolutely no authority to make further payments of UN assessments against the United States. 

4.  Relator further says that the change in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution made by the conflicting UN treaty is no more than a proposed amendment to Article III, Section 2, which has never been adopted by two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives and three-fourths of the State legislatures, as required by Article V of the U.S. Constitution.  Further, relator says the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that a treaty must be made in pursuance of the Constitution, in the case of Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1, (1957), in headnote 12, as follows: "Even though Article VI of the Federal Constitution does not specifically provide that treaties must be made in ‘pursuance thereof,' no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress or on any other branch of government which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 
1.  Relator says the U.S. Senate has by Resolution 126, 83d Congress and by Senate document 87, January 7, 1954, granted power to the United Nations to establish a United Nations Income Tax, and has exempted certain employees of the United Nations from their obligation to pay the United States Income Tax on their United Nations income by authorizing the reimbursement of their United States Income Tax for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1949.  Relator says the grant of authority by the U.S. Senate violates the XVI Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which requires both houses of Congress to levy an income tax, and hence requires both Houses of Congress to exempt individuals from the obligation to pay their Federal Income Tax.  

2.  Moreover, Relator says that the Senate's grant of the taxing power to the United Nations to tax the income of UN employees is an unauthorized delegation of the income taxing power to a corporate or quasi-corporate person, and that said UN Income Tax is in conflict with the XVI Amendment and is therefore void. 

3.      Relator further says that Senate Document 87 and Senate Resolution 126, incorporated herein by reference, granted the United Nations employees a refund or reimbursement of their Federal U.S. Income Tax paid by them for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1949.  The United States during those four years was financing 33-1/3% of the total budget. This four-year reimbursement was therefore, to the extent of the one-third reimbursement, a restoration to the employees of their U.S. Income Tax; in effect, Senate Document 87 granted these UN employees an exemption for this four-year period, from their U.S. Income Tax.  This one-third sum is estimated to be $6.7 million (number of employees estimated at 5,000; average salary estimated at $10,000; U.S. Income Tax rate during those four years estimated on the average of 10%), equals a U.S. Income Tax fraud estimated at $6.7 million (one-third of the four-year Federal Tax reimbursement of an estimated $20 million).  Under the Constitution, Amendment XVI, only the Congress has the power to tax income, and therefore only the entire Congress has the power to exempt from the U.S. Income Tax.  The Senate alone and the President combined, cannot lawfully do so (Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1957). 
  "The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all the branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined." 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 
1.  Relator further says that Congress, by Pub.  L 291, 79th Cong. (H.R. 4489, 59 Stat 669 of December 29, 1945) created the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S. C 288 et seq) in pursuance of the UN treaty. Further, Executive order 9698 of February 16, 1946, designated the UN as an International Organization entitled to the privileges and immunities of the Act.  Relator says that under Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants Congress its power to act. 
Nowhere in Article I has the Constitution granted to Congress the power to grant the foregoing immunities and therefore said law of Congress and Executive Order 9698 are unconstitutional and void.  As noted above under First Cause of Action, par. 3, the Supreme Court in the Reid case ruled that "treaties and laws passed pursuant to them must comply with the Constitution." This International Organizations Immunities Act and Executive Order 9698 do not comply with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and are therefore void. 

2.  Relator further says the International Organizations Immunities Act violates the doctrine of separation of powers.  Under this doctrine the legislative department of the Federal Government cannot interfere with the Judicial department by placing obstructions to the Federal Judiciary in obtaining jurisdiction over the respondent and granting him immunity from suit, unless he waives his immunity.  The Supreme Court has established its Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, wherein Rule 4 declares how the Federal Courts may obtain jurisdiction over defendants in civil cases.  Rule 4 does not allow a defendant to control jurisdiction of the Federal court over him by withholding his consent.  Yet the Immunities Act grants respondent this power.  To this extent the Immunities Act places an obstruction to the Federal Court's jurisdiction, and is therefore a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers between the judicial and legislative departments. Moreover, under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has provided for the discovery process giving the parties the right to obtain discovery of documents from each other, without their consent.  Yet the Immunities Act makes the property of International Organizations inviolate.  Under the Second Cause of Action, relator alleges a Federal Income Tax fraud, committed by the United Nations.  Relator claims a constitutional right under the discovery process of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 26) to obtain respondent's financial documents to prove this alleged income tax fraud.  The Immunities Act makes these documents inviolate, and is a further example of the Act's violation of the doctrine of separation of powers between the judicial and legislative departments of the Federal Government.  The Immunities Act is therefore unconstitutional and void. 

3. Relator further says the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat 669, U.S.C. Title 22 Par. 288 to 2886, Dec. 29,. 1945), together with Executive orders granting immunities to UN personnel, are in conflict with Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  This Article reads as follows: 

  "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or in equity ... affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.  In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. 

  The Constitution makes no reference to immunities for these foreign agents. Therefore the Act of Congress and Executive Orders purporting to grant these immunities are unconstitutional and void.  The 1957 Reid case requires that not only must all treaties comply with the Constitution, but all laws passed pursuant to a treaty must also comply with the Constitution. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
Relator says The UN Treaty Changes the Constitution by Transferring Congress' power to Declare War to the UN Security Council and that this is an unconstitutional transfer.  Article 43 of the UN Treaty states: 
 "All members of the United Nations... undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call ... armed forces, assistance, and facilities. 

Whereas, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: 
"The Congress shall have power to declare war......." Obviously, Congress' Constitutional power to declare war has been changed and transferred to the UN Security Council... armed forces, assistance and facilities "on the call" of said Security Council.  For over 100 years our U.S. Supreme Court has declared, 
          "A treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it is in violation of that instrument." Foster v Nielson, 2 Pet 314 

The fact that the treaty was put into effect by the Executive Branch and the Senate in the legislative branch does not preserve the treaty.  For as recently as 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, 
  "The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive, or by the Executive and the Senate combined." Reid v Covert (1957) 354 U.S. 1 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 
Relator further says that the assets of the United Nations are not, at a fair valuation, sufficient to pay its debts, and the Respondent the Secretary General of the U. N. is currently making transfers of funds, reportedly in excess of a half billion dollars, to so-called trust funds allegedly for the retirement benefits of its employees.  Relator is further informed, Respondent, the Secretary General of the United Nations, is transferring or has transferred assets out of the jurisdiction of this Court, viz., to the establishment of a subsidiary United Nations operation in the Country of Chile, and Relator alleges this is also in fraud of creditors, the largest of said creditors being the United States.  Relator says that unless a Receiver is appointed to take over the assets of the United Nations, to marshall its assets and liens of its creditors, further transfers in fraud of its creditors will continue to be made by the Secretary General of the United Nations. 

Admissions to the press by the Secretary General made on August 29, 1993 establish the United Nations is in fact, insolvent.  On that date, Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali said, "The organization runs from hand to mouth".  He made this admission to the UN General assembly's committee on financial matters. 

It is further requested the Receiver make a finding of the amount of the alleged Federal Income Tax fraud specified in the Second Cause of action herein alleged for the four years refund to UN employees of their Federal Income Tax paid for the four years 1940, 1947, 1948 and 1949; further that the Receiver be directed to order this amount of Federal Tax Refund be paid into the United States Treasury. 

WHEREFORE, relator respectfully prays that because this case involves, inter alia, a challenge to the constitutionality of the United Nations treaty, including the integral Statute of the International Court of Justice, that this Court enter judgment granting injunctive relief and other equitable relief as follows: 
1.  Issue an order declaring the United Nations Treaty to be unconstitutional and void. 
2.  Issue an order declaring the UN Income Tax to be unconstitutional because it is beyond the power of Congress to delegate its income taxing power to any person, natural corporate or international; further, that the U.S. Senate action in granting an income tax exemption from U.S. Income tax and allowing the reimbursement, violates the XVI Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional and void. 
3.  Issue an order declaring the disbursing officers of the U.S. Treasury shall cease making further payments to the United Nations of UN assessments, because Title 22 U.S. Code See. 287(e) authorizing these payments was passed pursuant to a void treaty and is likewise void.  
4. Issue an order declaring 22 U.S. Code Sec 288 et seq., (International Organizations Immunities Act) to be unconstitutional and void because it is beyond the powers granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8; further because it violates the doctrine of separation of powers, and grants immunities not permissible under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction stripped of any immunities for these agents of foreign governments under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. 
5.   Issue an order determining the amount of unpaid Federal Income Tax due the United States, and an additional order to the respondent, the Secretary General of the United Nations, to make immediate payment of such income tax to the United States. 
6.    That the Court grant Relator his costs herein, including reasonable attorney fees to the extent permitted by law.  
7.    Appoint a Receiver to wind up the affairs of the UN and pay off all creditors, including the largest creditor, the United States. 
8.   That the Court grant further legal and equitable relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 
____________________________ 
___________________________ 
           Attorney for Relator  
             J. J. Boesel, Ret'd Judge 

        Special Counsel 
        ************************************** 

COUNTY RESOLUTION #______  

Whereas, on November 22, 1994, our States Republican governors unanimously adopted the Williamsburg Resolve in which they agreed that "Federal action as exceeded the clear bounds of its jurisdiction under the Constitution and thus violated Rights guaranteed to the people" and  

Whereas to have LAWFUL government of, by and for the people, it's necessary that the policies and procedures found in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution for the united States of America be recognized as the Supreme Law of our land and honored and obeyed by those in positions of public trust, and 

Whereas, Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code contains laws designed to protect the Rights secured for citizens of the united States by their Constitution by making it a crime for anyone - including Federal officials - to engage in acts of sedition, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, depriving citizens of their rights under the color of law and treason, and  

Whereas, to protect the Supreme Laws of our land from anarchy by those in the Federal government, it's both urgent and necessary for the governed and the elected and appointed officials of state and local governments to insure the unbiased and just application of our nation's laws designed to prevent anarchy, and  

Whereas, if the Republican governors allegation is true, the Federal officials responsible for taking and/or perpetuating the unconstitutional "Federal action" have engaged in criminal activity and must be held accountable,  

BE IT RESOLVED that the commissioners of __________________ County,  State of ____________, hereby direct that:  

1. an ad-hoc committee composed of a randomly selected voter from each of the counties political precincts be created for the purpose of holding open hearings and investigations into the Republican governors allegation to:  
   A. Determine if the allegation is true.  
   B. Identify the most important and damaging "Federal actions" if the allegation is found to be true.  
   C. Establish what if any action is being taken to equitably and justly apply the laws designed to protect the individual Rights secured for us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights and if it is found that no such action is being taken, to suggest a course of action to do so.  

2. the committee provide this Commission a monthly summary of its activities and findings and a final report.  

3. should the ad-hoc committee find the governors allegation to be true, we further direct that the ______________ county administrator provide each County Commission in this State, our State's governor, Attorney General, and every State legislator and newspaper in the State with copies of the committees report(s) and an invitation to participate with the members of this County Commission for the purpose of planning a course of action to insure the correction of any "Federal action" found to exceed the clear bounds of Federal authority under the Constitution.  

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commission authorizes the expenditure of $________ to fund the above described effort; the use of said expenditures to include the costs associated with importing any expert witnesses needed to satisfy the intent of this Resolution.  
********* 

Douglas County Commission Letterhead  

Date -  

All County Commissioners in the State of Kansas  

Dear Fellow Commissioners:  

We in Douglas County are concerned over what we perceive to be unconstitutional actions being taken by the Federal government.  Perhaps our concern was best voiced by the Republican governors 1994 comment saying "Federal action has exceeded the clear bounds of its jurisdiction under the Constitution and thus violated rights guaranteed to the people."  

It's clear that this "Federal action" is being driven by our membership in the United Nations and the many treaties spawned by the U.N. Charter. We find this alarming for many reasons. Two are:  

1. The Federal government admitted in PL 313 that our support of the U.N. is unconstitutional by saying: "Whereas the existing state of war....and the termination thereof...would render certain statutory provisions inoperative.... Whereas some of these statutory provisions are needed to insure the ...capacity of the United states to support the United Nations....it is desirable to extend these statutory provisions."  These "statutory provisions" are the Emergency Powers legislation this nation has been under since March 9, 1993.  

2.  In U. S. Senate Report 93-549 dated 1973, we find that "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency... For 40 years (now over 65 years), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.. "  

As County Commissioners, we have both a lawful and moral obligation to uphold our oath and to protect the rights of our constituents who placed their trust in us.  For this reason, we are asking you join us in demanding that Attorney General Stovall file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of our nation's membership in the U.N.  A copy of our letter to her is attached. In joining us in this demand, you will be supporting the Republican governors 1994 pledge "to restore to the States and the people the prerogatives and freedoms guaranteed them under the Constitution." 

Please send your letter of support directly to Ms. Stovall and a courtesy copy to this Commission at the earliest practicable date as the need is urgent. 

Sincerely, 

1 attachment - Douglas County Commission 
letter to Kansas A.G. Stovall 

Chairman 
Douglas County Commission 
Douglas County, Kansas