jimbrown 0
IF They Knew That The 16th Amendment Was Never Properly Ratified Would the Federal Judges Dismiss All Income Tax Cases?
By
jimbrown, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
jimbrown 0
QuoteQuote[replyQuit hiding behind the hypothetical. If you've actually got proof then show it. If you don't, the entire premise of your thread is just stupid.
Proof of "what " , Mr Quade?
What is it that you are expecting me to show "proof" of?
The one you're hiding behind in your hypothetical.
"...That The 16th Amendment Was Never Properly Ratified..."
It's just nonsense for you to even ask the question without YOU showing any proof to even make us consider it.
Oh ! My bad!!
I assumed everyone was familiar with Donald Sullivan vs The United States of America March 21 , 2003
United States District court for the easrtern district of North Carolina.
Look that transcript up and then read the bottom of page 22 and pg 23.
Will that do ya?
Peace,
Jim B
Quote
Would it suprise you to know , Andy, That at least one feral judge has testified that the 16 th Amendment was never properly ratified?
feral judge, eh? Did he get neutered afterwards?
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuote(1) the 16th amendment was ratified and is part of the constitution. Anyone who wants to check can look into The Law That Never Was, the complete debunking of the book, and the author's conviction of fraud.
What?
Again you know more than a Feral Judge.
"complete debunking" of what book?
QuoteThe Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax is a 1985 book by William J. Benson and Martin J. "Red" Beckman which claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the income tax amendment, was never properly ratified. In 2007, and again in 2009, Benson's contentions were ruled to be fraudulent.
Prior to Benson, the "non-ratification" argument was presented in a court of law by James Walter Scott in the 1975 case of United States v. Scott, some sixty-two years after the ratification. Scott's argument was to no avail; he was convicted of willful failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 1969 through 1972, and the conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[2] In a 1977 case involving a tax protester named Bob Tammen, a U.S. District Court noted that Tammen was involved with a group called "United Tax Action Patriots," which took the position "that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly passed and therefore invalid...." However, the specific issue of the validity of the ratification was neither presented to nor decided by the court.[3]
William Benson's book relates how, in 1984, nine years after the Scott case and seventy-one years after the ratification was proclaimed, Benson began a research project to investigate the ratification process by traveling to the National Archives and the capitols of various New England states to review documents relating to the ratification of the Amendment.
QuoteThe Benson book was published in 1985. The earliest reported court case where the book was mentioned appears to be United States v. House.[4] Benson testified unsuccessfully in the House case.
Benson's claim was also rejected in Miller v. United States.[5] The court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company ... and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court then sanctioned the litigants for advancing a "patently frivolous" position.
Similar "Sixteenth Amendment arguments" have been uniformly rejected by the courts in other cases including United States v. Thomas.[6] In Thomas the court referred to Benson's book and noted that the errors found by Benson had already been investigated by Secretary of State Knox at the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and had been determined to be insignificant. (See Tax protester constitutional arguments.)
Arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified were also rejected in Sisk v. Commissioner;[7] United States v. Sitka;[8] and United States v. Stahl.[9] The non-ratification argument has also been deemed legally frivolous in Brown v. Commissioner[10] and Lysiak v. Commissioner.[11]
The argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal income tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).[12]
QuoteIn United States v. Benson,[13] a criminal case, Benson himself raised the Sixteenth Amendment argument, which was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In this phase of the case, his conviction for tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns was overturned on other grounds and the case was remanded to the trial court.
Upon retrial, Benson was again convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. The conduct for which he was convicted involved over $100,000 of income he did not report on Federal income tax returns. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation.[14]
Benson continued to promote his views. Until early 2008, Benson included verbiage on his web site – in quotation marks – that he attributed to the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, an early case interpreting the Amendment. He quoted the Court as saying that the Sixteenth Amendment "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals."[15] The text of the Court's decision does not contain any such quotation.[16] No U.S. Federal court has ever ruled that any provision of the United States Constitution forbids any direct taxation of individuals. Benson apparently removed the material after a court order was issued regarding his materials.
Until January 2008, Benson's web site also stated: "After serving time in federal prison for not paying his United States income taxes, Bill Benson still does not pay income taxes and yet our federal government chooses not to arrest him. Why? Because now he can use this book, which he has written : 'THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS' in his defense."[17] Similarly, as late as the year 2007, Benson claimed, in marketing the "Reliance Defense Package" that included his non-ratification argument, that "[t]o date, the IRS has steadfastly refused to prosecute any person standing on this defense. Why do they do this? Because they know they cannot win!!"[18] The book was actually published several years before Benson's arrest and, as noted above, Benson himself actually was convicted despite using the defense.
QuoteOn December 17, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Benson's "Reliance Defense Package" (including Benson's Sixteenth Amendment non-ratification argument), which Benson sold to customers via the internet, constituted a "fraud perpetrated by Benson" that had "caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources."[20]
The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes. Also, as is indicated above, Benson is precluded in this action from taking the position that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified."[21] The court stated that "the undisputed evidence shows that Benson had actual knowledge that the information in the Reliance Defense Package was false or fraudulent."[22] The court also stated: "Benson falsely tells customers that if they purchase and use his products they will be shielded from criminal prosecution for violating the internal revenue laws. Purchasers of the 'Reliance Defense Package' receive a letter signed by Benson that falsely represents that the purchaser can rely on Benson's research to conclude that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and that the purchaser is thereby not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income or social security taxes to the United States."[23] The court ruled that "Benson's position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700.[24]
The court granted an injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 prohibiting Benson from promoting the theories in Benson's "Reliance Defense Package," which the court referred to as "false and fraudulent advice concerning the payment of federal taxes."[25][26] The court injunction requires that Benson send his customers copies of the order, and that he post the order on his website.[27] As of January 2008 Benson had modified his web site and posted a copy of the court order.
Benson appealed the decision of the District Court. Benson argued that prohibiting him from selling his “Reliance Defense Package” and his “16th Amendment Reliance Package” was a violation of his First Amendment Rights. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that argument in a ruling on April 6, 2009. The Court ruled that although Benson could sell his book, The Law that Never Was, the court order prohibiting him from selling his “Reliance Defense Package” and his “16th Amendment Reliance Package” did not violate his First Amendment Right, as the sale of those two items constituted "false commercial speech."[28]
So, as you see, your nonsense has been handled in court many times, with the same conclusion. The judge in LTC Sullivan vs USA was wrong. Since he wasn't even ruling on tax law, it didn't really matter, but he was wrong as a matter of law.
QuoteQuote](3) The judges are paid whether they rule for or against the government. Their bottom line is unaffected. The government, whose bottom line might be affected if your delusions were reality, would simply find other ways to increase income.
Simple fact is ,Kennedy, sure these feral judges are guaranteed a certain income. Thing is if they please the powers they can move up a knotch and have an even greater income.
And that's how things work isn't it?
Tow the line boy and we'll give you a promotion.
I say fuck all that! By Jesus' decree I am God !!
There can be no promotions and certainly no government shoud expect me to pay tribute to them.
I am a Free Man.
I am required to pay tribute to no man.
God is my Father and I am his Son.
He who is ALL OF THE AGES requires that I disregard the laws of man and abide strictly by His law, regardless of earthly or human consequence.
God the Father has forbid me to pay income tax.
"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers'" , He says. Knowing full well that nothing really belongs to Ceaser!
All belongs to the Creator, the Divine Architect.
Ceaser owns nothing so pay him what he is due.
The Great Architect who designed this earth may be due some tribute.
Live a good life and I'm certain he will call the books square.
Peace,
Jim Brown
And now we've established what kind of crazy you are, and that you are incapable of reading the bible with any more accuracy than the tax code. Maybe if you're lucky you can share a cell with other tax evasion convicts and you can reinforce eachother's insanity.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
jimbrown 0
[reply Simple fact is ,Kennedy, sure these feral judges are guaranteed a certain income. Thing is if they please the powers they can move up a knotch and have an even greater income.
And that's how things work isn't it?
Tow the line boy and we'll give you a promotion.
I say fuck all that! By Jesus' decree I am God !!
There can be no promotions and certainly no government shoud expect me to pay tribute to them.
I am a Free Man.
I am required to pay tribute to no man.
God is my Father and I am his Son.
He who is ALL OF THE AGES requires that I disregard the laws of man and abide strictly by His law, regardless of earthly or human consequence.
God the Father has forbid me to pay income tax.
"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers'" , He says. Knowing full well that nothing really belongs to Ceaser!
All belongs to the Creator, the Divine Architect.
Ceaser owns nothing so pay him what he is due.
The Great Architect who designed this earth may be due some tribute.
Live a good life and I'm certain he will call the books square.
Peace,
Jim Brown
And that's how things work isn't it?
Tow the line boy and we'll give you a promotion.
I say fuck all that! By Jesus' decree I am God !!
There can be no promotions and certainly no government shoud expect me to pay tribute to them.
I am a Free Man.
I am required to pay tribute to no man.
God is my Father and I am his Son.
He who is ALL OF THE AGES requires that I disregard the laws of man and abide strictly by His law, regardless of earthly or human consequence.
God the Father has forbid me to pay income tax.
"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers'" , He says. Knowing full well that nothing really belongs to Ceaser!
All belongs to the Creator, the Divine Architect.
Ceaser owns nothing so pay him what he is due.
The Great Architect who designed this earth may be due some tribute.
Live a good life and I'm certain he will call the books square.
Peace,
Jim Brown
And now we've established what kind of crazy you are, and that you are incapable of reading the bible with any more accuracy than the tax code. Maybe if you're lucky you can share a cell with other tax evasion convicts and you can reinforce eachother's insanity.
If I'm really lucky I'll be sharing a cell with you ,Kennedy !!
Your picture is the fire that "Lights my Loins".
Now then, can we get back to the issue at hand?
Can any federal judge whithstand the test of Conflict of Interest when it comes to income tax cases?
At least one federal judge says no.
Why do you "feel" differently?
Peace,
Jim B.
Kennedy 0
QuoteCan any federal judge whithstand the test of Conflict of Interest when it comes to income tax cases?
At least one federal judge says no.
Why do you "feel" differently?
I don't feel one way or the other. I have read case law and opinions of professionals. You think I'm wrong? Go ahead. Provide the direct quote from a federal judge stating that judges have a conflict if interest when hearing cases involving the US government. Don't just name the case. Give us a quote.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
mr2mk1g 10
When did we start handing out user names to crack heads? 
That's a pretty easy reply , Andy.
It didn't require much thought.
You didn't even have to look up the transcripts from the case I cited.
Just make a reference to "koo-koo bird"! LOL!!!
Thing is that this "koo-koo bird" is a Free Man and you're still payin' the IRS !!
I bet you can't even quote the section of law which requires that you do that. As a matter of fact, I know you can't.
I hope those chains of servitude rest lightly on your shoulders.
Peace,
Jim B.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites