The Law That Never Was
All of US
On a recent trip to Washington D.C., I had the honor to meet a real American hero! Bill Benson along with Red Beckman set out & proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the 16th Amendment is fraudulent! The ability for the IRS to tax the American people is based on the 16th Amendment. The implications are awesome!
IFF you're like most people, Hollywood never seems to produce your kind of entertainment. But every once in a while, a movie sneaks through the censorial gates of political correctness. One such movie -- is "The F Zone".
In "The F Zone" the tax revolt we've all been waiting for has begun. Dennis Smith is financially ruined by the IRS. Led by Agent Lothar Gunter, the Feds levy his bank accounts & seize his assets forcing him out of business. Dennis Smith's accountant is helpless against the IRS. His longtime CPA refers Dennis to a tax attorney! It so happens Loren Adams is no ordinary tax attorney, her father committed suicide due to the actions of IRS Agent Lothar Gunter. Miss Adams wants Dennis to fight back by learning the law & to produce a movie to alert all Americans of the fraud & deceit of the IRS. Angered by Dennis' evasiveness, Lothar & his U.S. Marshals make life difficult for Dennis, who manages to stay one step ahead. Dennis commits himself to the task & is successful.
The factual information regarding the Federal Zone, the United States, IRS, citizenship status & the power of the IRS to forcefully tax U.S. citizens via the 16th Amendment is overwhelming. You will ask yourself over & over again: How did this movie ever get made?
You can't rent it, so you will have to buy. Watch it over & over again, sharing it with your friends & your friendly IRS agent.
Please read the accompanying articles so you too can understand the greatest fraud ever perpetrated against the American people by the Federal Government. Every single administration since 1913 has had the opportunity to repeal this unlawful action! IFF the U.S. Government will not do what is necessary to be a nation of law, order & justice, it leaves All of US with one remaining option.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that, I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, & will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, & defend the Constitution of the United States." -- oath of Office for all U.S. Presidents.
President Bush, it is not reasonable to give the American People a tax cut when it is fact, that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional! Repeal the Federal Income Tax because it is unlawful & based on a fraudulent act by your office!
IFF this is not done then the following quote is appropriate - note the author!
A nation can survive its fools & even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known & he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor: he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims & he wears their face & their garments & he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly & unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. Cicero
"If you are made aware of a lie & you do nothing to expose the lie, then you become part of the lie. There can be a million lies, but there is only one truth." David Riddell
When attorneys at law, who are liars & thieves are elevated to politicians, who are specialists at sucking the blood out of the host, what you get is more lies, more theft of your property & less inheritance for your children.
We must return the United States of America to the status of a lawful nation! G-d bless the Republic!
Katman
'The Law That Never Was'
A Interview With Bill Benson interview answers question, 'Is 16th Amendment legal?'
By Geoff Metcalf
A criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue for approximately 10 years, William J. Benson of South Holland, Illinois has been at the vanguard of debate & controversy surround the 16th Amendment for almost two decades. In 1984 he embarked upon a yearlong project to examine the process of the ratification of the 16th Amendment & to determine whether or not it had been lawfully adopted as part of the U.S. Constitution. The culmination of Benson's work is the book, "The Law That Never Was."
Q: You have been engaged in this 16th amendment battle for almost 20 years. How did it start?
A: I was a former investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue. I discovered a great deal of corruption within that department & for that the Director fired me. I told him if he fired me, I would sue him for violation of First Amendment rights. 6½ years later we were in court. We had a jury of 6; it was a civil trial. They awarded me $353,000 for violation of First Amendment rights.
I began working with my attorney, Andy Spiegal. We had a willful failure to file case in Indiana. Red Beckman had some documentation that showed there was some serious problem with the 16th Amendment. He got the documentation from a man named Dean Hurst, from Cheyenne, Wyoming. I purchased that documentation & made every attempt to have Andy get it before the court, & the Judge said no.
The judge gave us 3 real good reasons why he did that: The documentation is not notarized, it is not certified, & you do not have a witness to testify to.
That evening I said, "Okay, the judge has given us our marching orders. The only thing we have to do is go to all 48 states & get the documentation" to see if the documents have any validity. The attorney said, "Bill, you're crazy, you can't do that". I said, "Sure you can".
Q: How long did it take to do that?
A: It took a full year. There is not one state, not one that has ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the most amazing documents I found was in the national archives in Washington D.C. -- a 16-page memorandum written by Ruben J. Clark, then the attorney for Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox, on February 15, 1913. What he says is that in the certified copies of the amendment passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the 16th Amendment, it appears that only 4 of those resolutions -- Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee & New Mexico -- have quoted absolutely accurately & correctly what was proposed by Congress. The other 33 resolutions contain either errors of capitalization, spelling or wording.
Q: So what's the big deal? Why are errors of capitalization, spelling or wording so significant?
A: On page 15 of the 16-page memorandum, the attorney says, "further under the Constitution, a Legislature is prohibited from altering 'in any way' the resolution proposed by Congress." The right of the Legislature is merely to approve or disapprove, the amendment. The last page is also interesting because it says the department has not received the copy of the resolution passed by the state of Minnesota, but the secretary of the governor of the state has officially notified the department that legislators of that state have ratified the proposed 16th amendment.
Q: Here's the obvious question that comes up all the time. Say it was a bureaucratic oversight, a procedural glitch, or something. Why are we still saddled with this thing? The reality check is, if you don't comply you end up in a whole world of hurt, as you know from personal experience.
A: Oh, there isn't any question about it. And that is why I continue to defy the federal government. That is why, when we were in Washington (at the National Press Club) I said, "I have waited 15 years to get behind these microphones, & I challenge the United States, I challenge the Justice Department, to come & get me. Take me, & leave these people alone." Let's get the 16th Amendment argument on the table once & for all before a jury & let them decide.
Q: Why don't they just drag you into court & resolve the controversy once & for all?
A: I wish they would. This has been going on now for 18 years. They cannot win with the 16th Amendment argument.
Q: Bill, at this event you guys had in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club in July, it seemed like a collection of former Geoff Metcalf guests, including Joe Bannister.
Joe Bannister is a former IRS agent -- a badge-carrying, gun-carrying agent who after listening to my radio program with interviews of other people & hearing discussions about this issue conducted a research analysis of his own to find out if he was enforcing a law that was a law or not. He submitted his findings to his superiors & asked them to either confirm or deny this stuff, or at least look into it. They basically said, "We'll be happy to accept your resignation, but we are not going to respond".
A: They forced him to resign. I think the entire nation owes Joe a great deal because of the courage it took for a special agent from the Internal Revenue Service to do what Joe Bannister did. On C-SPAN Joe Bannister told the entire listening audience that the IRS was a fraud, & that the 16th Amendment had not been ratified.
Q: It is fascinating that the first time you guys had a get together, it was broadcast on C-SPAN. I think they had the largest requests they ever had for any taped shows, & they ain't cheap. Yet, when you came back, they wouldn't even put you on the air.
A: That's true. I think the problem that arose was with the promoter of the program. He made a mistake. He went ahead & released a press announcement to the national press in Washington & to the President & right on down & told them what we were going to talk about. The first session on July 2nd they had to bring in 4 people, 2 cameras, the lights & the whole thing, & we were on for three hours & 28 minutes. C-SPAN aired that program on four separate occasions. But they didn't show up on the second one & it was in my personal opinion because the cat was let out of the bag, so to speak, because of the error of the promoter.
Q: Bill, regarding this whole 16th Amendment issue, some folks say, "Well, it's an interesting academic argument, & they may be right on the 'technical' aspects of it, but the reality check is the golden rule -- & the guy with the gold makes the rules."
Were you ever approached by anyone "in government" regarding the documentation you had collected?
A: Yes I was. In 1985, prior to volume one being printed, Mrs. Benson had received a call from an attorney by the name of Warren Richardson. Warren said, "I am making this call on behalf of Senator Orrin Hatch. And of course," he said, "you know who he is? You tell Bill that it is an absolute emergency that he call Washington D.C. immediately."
Q: Did you call them immediately?
A: No, I had no emergency. I was lecturing on the 16th amendment. I did call them in a few days. Warren Richardson said, "I am making this call on behalf of Senator Orrin Hatch". He said "Bill, you cannot permit that book to get in the hands of the kooks out there. We know what you are doing."
I said, "Warren, by your making this telephone call to me you're one of the biggest kooks in D.C."
He said, "You don't understand what I'm trying to do? You have all of the books printed that you want. You name the number of books, & then you put a price on each & every book, & we will pay it. But then we want you never ever again to speak to one person, never again to get on one radio station, one television station or one group of people."
Q: Was that all?
A: No. Warren then said, "The last thing we want are all 17,000 certified, notarized documents that you have -- & you will be a multi-millionaire."
Q: What was your response?
A: I told him thank you, but no thanks. In fact, I told him to "go to hell!" I'm not for sale. America is not for sale. What I am fighting for is freedom, & that is exactly what I told Warren Richardson. I told him to carry that message right back to Orrin Hatch.
Q: You made that announcement at the second event in D.C. that C-SPAN chose not to broadcast. Did Orrin Hatch's office contact you to confirm, deny or threaten or try to sue you?
A: No, they have not.
Q: Have you made any effort to get in touch with them?
A: I haven't made any effort to get in touch with Orrin Hatch since 1985. I was waiting for the proper forum to release this information. I thought C-SPAN was that forum, because you're speaking to millions of people, not groups of 100 or 200, & it would get all over the country. But C-SPAN didn't show up.
Q: Bill, why is this whole 16th Amendment issue so critical?
A: In order for the federal government to collect anything from you, they must have a law. The 16th Amendment is what they collect the tax on. And I have proven beyond a doubt with 17,000 certified notarized documents that not one state out of the 48 has ratified the law. They have all rejected it.
Q: Bill, thank you.
Final thoughts from interviewer Geoff Metcalf: Bill Benson claims that not a single state legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution in the manner required by law. According to Benson's book, "The Law That Never Was":
The federal government claims Kentucky was the second state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment & sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor & 22 opposed. Apparently, the Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment. Federal officials, who had possession of documents showing this rejection, nevertheless claimed Kentucky had ratified the amendment.
In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House & the language of the resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress. However, the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed, so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16th Amendment. And whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. Several states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power that these states did not possess.
Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not deter Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that ¾ of the states ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American union, so to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states. In Feb. 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment -- including Kentucky, California & Oklahoma. But since Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, & Oklahoma wanted something entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. Then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment & Minnesota sent in nothing. In the final analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted.
Geoff Metcalf is a staff reporter & columnist for WorldNetDaily. Geoff Metcalf is a talk-show host for TalkNetDaily on KSFO in San Francisco.
All Common Law Rights are reserved explicitly without prejudice
UCC 1-103, 1-105, 1-207.
"NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER"
I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice! Let me make that perfectly plain, clear and mutually agreed, that, and I repeat, I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice! This is my private opinion; I am only sharing information! Notice to agent is notice to principle and notice to principle is notice to agent. For those who would violate my privacy by intercepting this private communication, I fully reserve all of my absolute (sovereign) natural (natural by law) "creator endowed" inherent Rights! I also choose to exercise my Right of remedy In the event that any party attempts to use this writing in any proceeding of any kind! I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information! I could be wrong about all of it! Hereinafter "disclaimer". From now on until further notice the "disclaimer" is presumed in any further private or personal or public or official communication from me to you. "Disclaimer"
This letter open to suggestions, improvements, and comments.
Questions and Comments: Email Katman
