Republic Restoration Initiative

In the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Washington, D.C.

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, 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 is a case involving a treaty. Relator is the duly elected Attorney General of the State of ____________.
2. Realtor 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 U.N. 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 €, authorized the disbursing officers of the U.S. Treasury department to continue making payments of U.S., tax dollars to cover annual U.N., 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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. Consti8tution. 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 q2, 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 poser on Congress or on any other br4anch 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, 83 rd 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 so levy an income tax, and hence requires both Houses of Congress to exempt individuals
   from the obligation to pay their Federal Income Tax.
2. Relator further says that Senate’s grant of the taxing power to the United Nations to tax the income of U.N. employees is an unauthorized delegation of the income taxing power to a corporate or quasi-corporate person, and that said U.N. Income Tax is in conflict with Amendment XVI 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 Income Tax paid by them for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1949. 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 U.N. 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 poser 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, 79 th Cong. (H.R. 4489, 59 Sta69 on December, 29, 1945) created the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S. C 288 et seq.) in pursuance of the U. N. treaty. Further, Executive order 9698 of February 16, 1946, designated the U.N. 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 para. 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 department. 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 Tac 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 separatio90n of powers between the judicial and legislative departments of the Federal Government. The Immunities Act is therefore unconstitutional and void.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Relator says the U.N. Treaty Changes the Constitution by Transferring Congress’ power to Declare War to the U.N. Security Council and that this is an unconstitutional transfer. Arti9cle 43 of the U.N. 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 theConstitution states: “The Congress shall have power to declare war …” Obviously, Congress’ constitutional power to declare war has been changed and transferred to the U.N. 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 branched 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 sys 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 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 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. ButrosButrosGhali said, “The organization runs from hand to mouth.” He made this admission to the U.N. 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 U.N. employees of their Federal Income Tax paid for the four years 1946, 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 U.N. 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 SVI
   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 U.N. assessments, because Title 22
   U.S. Code Sec. 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 1, 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 respo9ndent, 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 U.N. and pay off all creditors, including the largest creditor, the United States.
8. That the Court grant further legal and equitable relief as thes Court may deem just and proper.

Attorney for Relator J.J. Boesel, Ret’dJudge, Special Counsel