_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
 
Philadelphia, Pa  -  On Tuesday March 26, 2002, a three judge panel effectively ruled that Article V of the United States Constitution does not restrict Congress from modifying the Constitution through simple legislation.   The fallout has yet to be determined.

The case involves a federal refund lawsuit filed by Ken Evans, a suburbanite of Philadelphia and member of the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party.

During 1999 an undisclosed sum was withheld from Evans’ semi-monthly paychecks.  In April 2000, Evans filed a claim for refund with the IRS and sent along an additional $2900. Evans asked for a refund of all the money he did not owe and instructed the IRS to keep everything he did owe.

The IRS - did nothing.  They didn’t tell Mr. Evans how much he owed.  They didn’t send him any money.   The IRS simply refused to respond.  So, after nine months and in accordance with law, Evans filed suit in District Court.

My argument was simple, said Evans, “Tell me what I owe.  Keep what I owe.  Give me the difference.”

Unfortunately, simple is not a term often used in conjunction with the IRS, nor with the Department of Justice, which was now defending the IRS in court.

Evans continued, “I went to court to force the DOJ to tell the IRS to tell me what I owed.   You’d think they’d be anxious to tell me what I owed.  Yet, to this date no one has.  Not one government official has said, Mr. Evans, you owe this specific amount of money. That’s because the personal income tax is literally one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people.  Well, the American people are waking up and they are not happy.”

“The law says that Congress can tax income.  I don’t disagree.  But I profoundly disagree with anyone that mistakenly associates the now commonly understood meaning of ‘income’ for its true Constitutional sense.  The Supreme Court has been very clear on this subject.  Because ‘income’ is a word contained within the Constitution, what ever the commonly understood meaning of that word was, at the time it was declared ratified, is the exact same today.   In order to change the Constitution in any way, the Constitution itself would have to again be amended.”

The Third Circuit disagreed with Evans and the High Court decision.  In 1990, the Third Circuit ruled in the case U.S. vs. Connor 898 F.2d 942, that Congress has defined ‘income’ through legislation and that definition includes ‘compensation for services.’   This week’s decision reaffirms the decision in Connor.

“This is nothing short of a Constitutional crisis.” pronounced Evans, “If Circuit Courts can effectively overturn Supreme Court decisions and Congress can effectively expand its own power, any rational, freedom loving person should be, at least figuratively, up in arms.”

But, the litigation is not over yet.  The next step is a Petition for Rehearing, which Evans is expected to file within two weeks.

“Of course, I’m going to file the Petition (for Rehearing),” said Evans, “The Court blatantly misstated my argument, then claimed the misstated argument they created was incorrect.  What bothers me most is that these judges know exactly what they’re doing.  That’s why they’ve marked this decision as NOT FOR PUBLICATION, NOT PRECEDENTIAL and UNREPORTED.   They’re trying to hide what they’ve done. Well, they should be embarrassed.  They’ve violated their oath of office and the trust of the American people.”

----------------------------

Pertinent documents in Evans’ refund lawsuit can be viewed at http://www.reasons2vote.com.  The most recent ruling is expected to be available online within a few days.