UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Jeffrey T. Maehr,

PlaintifflPetitioner

- Appellant,
Case No. 16-1204

v.

-John Koskinen, Commissioner of Internal

Revenue;
-John Vencato, Revenue Agent;
-Ginger Wray, Revenue Agent;
-Jeremy Woods, Disclosure Specialist;
-William Sothen, Revenue Agent;
-Gary Murphy, Revenue Agent;
-Theresa Gates, Program Manager;
-Sharisse Tompkins, Disclosure Manager;
-Carolyn Colvin, Acting Social Security
Administrator;
-Wells Fargo Bank, NA;
-John and Jane Does, 1-100,
DefendantslRespondents

Addendum to Reply

- Appellees.

ADDENDUM TO REPLY - 16TH AMENDMENT EVIDENCE

Plaintiff comes before this court with this Addendum containing further recently
discovered supporting evidence that, contrary to Federal Defendant's claims that
the 16th Amendment authorizes a tax on Plaintiffs wages, (or anything else it wants
to call "income"), lawful "income" tax existed prior to the 16th Amendment, and as
the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed, the 16th Amendment did NOT
create any new (I) form of taxation that did not already exist.

I Plaintiff's
Opening Brief, Footnote 10, P. 7: "The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution has not
enlarged the taxing power of Congress ..." This is brought out clearly by this court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific
Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103. "We are of opinion, however, that the
confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto
unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to

Wh Amendment Addendum to Reply - Case #16-1204

Page 1 of 3

The 16th Amendment says the Pollock court's conclusionf'') was wrong (or, in any
event, is overruled). The 16th Amendment provides that Congress can continue to
apply the income tax to gains that qualify as "incomes" (that is, the subclass of
- receiptsthat'liaa al:waysoeen subject tollie "iiicome'" excise dueto fieing the product of an exercise of privilege) without being made to treat the tax as direct and
needing apportionment when applied to dividends and rent by virtue of judicial
consideration of the source. The 16th Amendment merely says that privileged
gains can't escape the tax by resorting to Pollock's "source" argument.
Huge portions of our modern body of lawful "income" tax law pre-date the 16th
Amendment, (back to July 1, 1862). This is plainly stated in the preface (P. iii) to
the 1939 Internal Revenue Code(3). Congress published a comprehensive
"Derivation of Code Sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and 1954"
tablet'), dated January 21, 1992, which explicitly identifies the pre-Ifith -origins of
these still-current statutes.
It must be noted that the 1986 Internal Revenue Code is based on these and prior
documents and is still in place today. Throughout the Derivation table, it will be
noted that there are well over 100 examples of pre-16th Amendment enactment

the regulations of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far -reaching effect of this erroneous
assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it."
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 11, 12, 18 (1916);
"In the former case it was pointed out that the all-embracing power of taxation conferred upon Congress by the
Constitution included two great classes, one indirect taxes or excises, and the other direct taxes, and that of
apportionment with regard to direct taxes. It was held that the income tax in its nature is an excise; that is, it is a
tax upon a person measured by his income ... It was further held that the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment was
not to change the nature of this tax or to take it out of the class of excises to which it belonged, but merely to make
it impossible by any sort of reasoning thereafter to treat it as a direct tax because of the sources from which the
income was derived." ([14-15]; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1917). Brieffor the Appellant at 11, 14-15;
See also Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)." (Emphasis added - "derived from"
discussed below). " ... It manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions
ofthe 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation." Evans vs. Gore, 253 US 245,263 (1920). "It was
not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power." Bowers v.
Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170; 46 S.Ct. 449 (1926);
The Pollock court embraced an argument that when applied to excisable gains realized in the form of
dividends and rent, the "income" tax was transformed into a property tax on the personal property sources (stock
and real estate) from which the gains were derived. (pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429, and 158
U.S. 601, (both 1895).
2

Not provided herein, as it is 507 pages in length.

Not provided herein, as it is 177 pages in length.

16th Amendment Addendum to Reply - Case #16-1204

Page 2 of 3

date (in 1913) throughout, proving that the "income" tax was not "enacted" through
the 16th Amendment.
Theconc1usion-fiy TRS~Defendants-that the "income" tax was authorized by the 16th
Amendment is erroneous and frivolous. The "income" tax was always a tax on
federal privilege and was, and still is) an "excise" tax. Wages, salary or
compensation for services were never subject to such a tax, and were never equated
as "income" prior to the 16th Amendment, so they can hardly be suddenly made to be
something that never was, and certainly cannot be applied to whatever Defendants
want to call "income."
The issue is a simple one which the U.S. Supreme Court clearly defined and
clarified... "the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation" on wages,
salary or compensation for services. Such a tax never existed prior to the 16th
Amendment, and certainly cannot lawfully exist today. Wages are NOT the subject
of the 16th Amendment, and no law or evidence is of record make it so.
The obvious and simple questions that are once again presented to Defendants and
this court are ...
1. "By what law is the IRS using to make Plaintiffs wages 'income'?"

2. By what law is the IRS assessing Plaintiff on all his business assets as
"income", which is not of record?"
3. "By what law can Defendants levy Plaintiffs Social Security in its entirety,
and attacking his V.A. Disability Compensation counter to standing laws on
such levy?"
Plaintiff would remind the court of a well-known quote:
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over
generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving
lunatic." Dresden James.
The evidence is clear!
Respectfully submitted,

Z-d7-/~
Date

16th Amendment Addendum to Reply - Case #16-1204

Page 3 of 3

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
J effrey T. Maehr,
PlaintifflPetitioner

- Appellant,

v.

Case No. 16-1204

-John Koskinen, Commissioner of Internal
Revenue;
-John Vencato, Revenue Agent;
-Ginger Wray, Revenue Agent;
-Jeremy Woods, Disclosure Specialist;
-William Sothen, Revenue Agent;
-Gary Murphy, Revenue Agent;
-Theresa Gates, Program Manager;
-Sharisse Tompkins, Disclosure Manager;
-Carolyn Colvin, Acting Social Security
Administrator;
-Wells Fargo Bank, NA;
-John and Jane Does, 1-100,
DefendantslRespondents

- Appellees.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff comes before this court seeking Summary Judgment on this instant case.
Plaintiff has provided ample evidence of due process civil right violations, fraud and
evasion of answering the specific, clear U.S. Supreme Court case precedent which
Defendants are bound to comply with.
Based on evidence of record, Defendants Internal Revenue ServicelFederal agents,
(Hereafter IRS)...
L Unlawfully assessed all Plaintiffs

business bank account entries as "income"

when it was not lawful income, NOR Plaintiffs wages, and which was never
proven in the record to be income OR wages.
2. Claim that Plaintiffs wages are lawful "income" without any proof in the
record, and any proof of previous assessment on such wages, or any rebuttal of

Motion for Summary Judgment - Case #16-1204

Page 1 of 3

U'.S. Supreme Court case law stating the contrary.

3. Are taking all of Plaintiff's Social Security retirement contrary to standing

law-:- and wifhout any evidence in the record of faWful auihonty to levy ANY of
his assets, let alone above 15% if it were lawful. As of October 1, 2016, total
levy will be $5576.00.
4. Attacked Plaintiff's Veterans Disability Compensation account contrary to
standing law, and without any evidence in the record of authority to do so,
costing Plaintiff financial loss.P)
5. Claim that the 16th Amendment authorizes a "new" tax on Plaintiffs wages
without any evidence in the record, and contrary to U.S. Supreme Court case
law. (Also see Addendum to Reply Brief on more l S'" Amendment evidence).
6. Where IRS/agents were not directly involved with this fraudulent levy
action, they are nevertheless complicit in evasion of answering multiple
requests for answers to challenges despite being provided clear Ll.S. Supreme
Court case law and other evidence which they should have known about or
investigated properly, and all providing fraudulent information to Plaintiff.
7. Defendant Colvin continues to cooperate with the IRS turning over all

Plaintiffs Social Security to the IRS despite standing laws preventing such a
complete taking, and without evidence in the record of authority to do so.
8. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank failed to respond to Original Brief or Appeal
Brief (in default) as to what authority Wells Fargo Bank had to comply with a
levy that was clearly illegally being applied to Plaintiffs Veterans Disability
Compensation account contrary to standing laws preventing such attempt.
Where parties fail to respond to specific and clear evidence, it creates a default, and
a tacit implication that they will not respond or cannot respond. That being the
case, there is no controversy on these issues that has any evidence of record, and
Summary Judgment and declared relief should be GRANTED to Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
t

Date
1 Despite Wells Fargo Bank recently refunding the $125 "non-refundable"
fee for the levy action,
(apparently due to Plaintiff's Reply Brief and notice of default), Plaintiff still lost that $125 for many months, and
has been in constant fear of further attacks by IRS, and compliance once again to same by Wells Fargo Bank.

Motion for Summary Judgment

- Case #16-1204

Page 2 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on 9-27-16, I served a copy of the 16th Amendment Addendum
fmd-Appellani7Petitionei'sMoTionTor Summary -Iudginerit, 'by United States-Postal
Mail, to the below named counsel for Federal Appellees, and non -responding Wells
Fargo Bank, at the addresses stated.
1. Julie Avetta, Appellate Section, P.O. Box 502, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20044.

2. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, P.O. Box 29728, Phoenix, AZ 85038-9728.

Date

Motion for Summary Judgment - Case #16-1204

Page 3 of 3