|
|
The government claims its sole legal authority
for the income tax is the 16th Amendment.
It was irrefutably, in direct violation of law, fraudulently
certified as ratified in 1913, and is therefore, void.
 What
Our History Teachers Didn't Tell Us
- a. Admit that the IRS says it is the 16th Amendment
that gives it the authority to impose the income tax
directly on the working people of America.
See IRS Publication No. 1918 (July, 96), Cat.
No. 22524B ;
"The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution states that citizens are
required to file tax returns and pay taxes."
Exhibit 026a
How
It's S'posed to Work (Directly Speaking—An Indirect Tax)
Hush
Money-Fraud-Bribes—(Senator-Go to Hell)
- b. Admit that the New York Times says the 16th
Amendment is the government's authority to impose the
income tax directly on the working people of America.
See The New York Times Almanac, 2001, The World's
Most Comprehensive and Authoritative Almanac, page 161:
"Congress's right to levy taxes on the income of individuals
and corporations was contested throughout the 19th century, but that
authority was written into the Constitution with the passage of the
16th Amendment in 1913."
Exhibit 026b
- c. Admit that the federal courts have said the
16th Amendment is the government's authority to impose
the income tax directly on the working people of America.
See United States of America vs. Jerome David Pederson,
(1985) Case No. CR-84-57-GF: Judge Paul G. Hatfield (United
States District Court For The District of Montana) wrote:
"The income tax laws of the United States of America
are constitutional, having been validly enacted
under authority of the Sixteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution."
See Also, United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923,
927 (10th Cir. 1982): the court declared:
"The Sixteenth Amendment removed any need to apportion income
taxes among the states that otherwise would have been required by
Article I, Section 9, clause 4."
Exhibit 026c,
026d
- d. Admit that findings, published in "The Law That
Never Was," make a compelling case that the 16th Amendment
(the "income tax amendment") was not legally ratified
and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely
in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified
in February 1913.
See "The Law That Never Was," by Bill Benson and
Red Beckman
Exhibit (books, Volumes 1 & 2)
A
Fearful Master
- Admit that the U.S. Court of Appeals, in U.S. v. Stahl
(1986), 792 F2d 1438, ruled that the claim that ratification
of the 16th Amendment was a fraudulently certified was
a political question for Congress to decide
because the court could not reach the merits of the claim
without expressing a lack of respect due the Congress
and the Executive branches of the government.
See U.S. v. Stahl, 792 F2d 1438
Exhibit 027
Just
The Facts
- a. Admit that in 1985, the Congressional Research Service issued
a Report, at the request of Congressmen, to address the claim by Bill
Benson that the 16th Amendment was a fraud.
See "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment," by John Ripy, Esq,
CRS 1985,
the "Ripy Report"
Exhibit 027a
- b. Admit that the Ripy Report was very specific
in its declaration that it was not going to address the
specific factual allegations detailed in Benson's book,
"The Law That Never Was."
See "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment,"
by John Ripy, Esq, CRS 1985
Exhibit 027a
Amending
The Constitution—Or Making Sausage
- c. Admit that the Ripy Report then went on to assert that the
actions of a government official must be presumed to be correct and
cannot be judged or overturned by the courts.
See "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment," by John Ripy, Esq,
CRS 1985, the "Ripy Report"
Exhibit 027a
- d. Admit that when it comes to amending the Constitution
the government does whatever it wants to do, making up
the rules regarding the ratification process as it goes
along, while ignoring the spirit, if not the letter,
of Article V of the Constitution.
- e. Admit, for instance, that the 27th Amendment
was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and that
the states were allowed 202 years within which to have
3/4th of the states ratify it, with Maryland ratifying
it on December 19, 1789 and New Jersey on 1992
See 57 FR 21187
Exhibit 027b
See Annotations, 27th Amendment
Exhibit 027c
- Admit that in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, 256
U.S. 368, 374-375 (1921), the Supreme Court concluded:
"We do not find anything in the article which suggests
that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification
for all time, or that ratification in some of the states
may be separated from that in others by many years and
yet be effective. We do find that which strongly suggests
the contrary. First, proposal and ratification are not
treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in
a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they
are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it
is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefore
that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication
being that when proposed they are to be considered and
disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but
the expression of the approbation of the people and is
to be effective when had in three- fourths of the states,
there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently
contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the
will of the people in all sections at relatively the
same period, which of course ratification scattered through
a long series of years would not do
These considerations and the general purport and spirit
of the article lead to the conclusion expressed by Judge
Jameson 'that an alteration of the Constitution proposed
to-day has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs
of to-day, and that, if not ratified early while that
sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to
be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon,
unless a second time proposed by Congress.' That this
is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when
what is comprehended in the other view is considered;
for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two
in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-are still pending
and in a situation where their ratification in some of
the states many years since by representatives of generations
now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented
in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives
of the present or some future generation. To that view
few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it
is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference
or implication from article 5 is that the ratification
must be within some reasonable time after the proposal."
See Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 374-375 (1921)
Exhibit 028
- Admit that the date of September 25, 1789, when the 27th
Amendment was first proposed, is “widely separated in
time” from the date of March 6, 1978, when Wyoming ratified
this amendment.
See Annotations, 27th Amendment
Exhibit 027c
- Admit that pursuant to the United States Constitution,
Congress is authorized to impose two different types
of taxes: direct taxes and indirect taxes.
See U.S. Constitution Article. 1 §
2 clause 3; U.S. Constitution Article 1 §
8 clause 1; U.S. Constitution Article 1 §
9 clause 4.
Exhibits 029, 030, 031
An
Income Tax—Unconstitutional (U.S. Supreme Court)
- Admit that the constitutionality of the 1894 income tax
act was in question in the case of Pollock v. Farmers’
Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158
U.S. 601 (1895), and that in this case, the Supreme Court
found that Congress could tax real and personal property
only by means of an apportioned, direct tax. Finding
that the income from real and personal property was part
of the property itself, the Court concluded in this case
that a federal income tax could tax such income only
by means of an apportioned tax. Further finding that
as this particular tax was not apportioned, it was unconstitutional.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157
U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Exhibits 032, 033
- Admit that for Congress to tax today real or personal
property, the tax would have to be apportioned.
Exhibit 034
- Admit that for Congress to tax income from real and personal
property without the authority of the 16th Amendment,
such taxes would have to be apportioned.
Exhibit 035
- Admit that in 1913, the following law, Revised Statutes
§ 205, was in effect:
“Sec. 205. Whenever official notice is received at the
Department of State that any amendment proposed to the
Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according
to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary
of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published
in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws,
with his certificate, specifying the States by which
the same may have been adopted, and that the same has
become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part
of the Constitution of the United States.”
See R.S. § 205
Exhibit 036
- Admit that Revised Statutes § 205 provided that “official
notice” of a State’s ratification of an amendment must
be received at the State Department.
See R.S. § 205,
Exhibit 036
U.S.
Congress to State—"Prove It"
- Admit that on or about July 31, 1909, Senate Joint Resolution
40 proposing the ratification of the 16th Amendment was
deposited with the Department of State and the same was
published at 36 Statute 184, and that this resolution
read as follows:
SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred
and nine.
JOINT RESOLUTION.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds
of each House concurring therein), That the following
article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislatures
of three-fourths of the several states, shall be valid
to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several States, and without
regard to any census or enumeration."
J.C. CANNON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
J.S. SHERMAN,
Vice-President of the United States, and President of the
Senate.
See SJ 40, 36 Statute184
Exhibit 037
- Admit that on July 27, 1909, the same Congress adopted
Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, which read as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the President of the United
States be requested to transmit forthwith to
the executives of the several States of the
United States copies of the article of amendment
proposed by Congress to the State legislatures
to amend the Constitution of the United States,
passed July twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine,
respecting the power of Congress to lay and
collect taxes on incomes, to the end that the
said States may proceed to act upon the said
article of amendment; and that he request the
executive of each State that may ratify said
amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State
a certified copy of such ratification.
Attest:
Charles G. Bennett
Secretary of the Senate
A. McDowell
Clerk of the House of Representatives
See Concurrent Resolution, provided by
Becraft
Exhibit 038
- Admit that not only did this resolution request that certified
copies of favorable State ratification resolutions be
sent to Washington, D.C., the States were expressly informed
to do so by Secretary of State Philander Knox, who sent
the following “form” letter to the governors of the 48
States then in the Union:
“Sir:
“I have the honor to enclose a certified copy of a
Resolution of Congress, entitled 'Joint Resolution
Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States,' with the request that you cause
the same to be submitted to the Legislature of your
State for such action as may be had, and that a
certified copy of such action be communicated to
the Secretary of State, as required by Section 205,
Revised Statutes of the United States. See overleaf.)
An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication
is requested.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
P. C. Knox”
See copy of “form” letter, provided by Becraft
Exhibit 039
The
Vigro Hits the Fan
- a. Admit that in 1909, there were 48 states and
that three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give
their approval in order for it to be ratified.
See Knox's Proclamation
Exhibit 039a
- b. Admit that Philander Knox declared the 16th
amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, naming the following
38 states as having approved it: Alabama, Kentucky, South
Carolina, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maryland,
Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California,
Montana, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas,
Colorado, North Dakota, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, Maine,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Wisconsin, New York, South Dakota,
Arizona, Minnesota, Louisiana, Delaware, Wyoming, New
Jersey and New Mexico.
See Knox's Proclamation
Exhibit 039a
- Admit the following facts:
- When California provided uncertified copies
of its resolution to Secretary of State Philander
Knox, Knox wrote the following to California
Secretary of State Frank Jordan: “I have the
honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of the 27th ultimo, transmitting a copy of
the Joint Resolution of the California Legislature
ratifying the proposed Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, and in reply thereto
I have to request that you furnish a certified
copy of the Resolution under the seal of the
State, which is necessary in order to carry
out the provisions of Section 205 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States”.
See Letter from Knox to Jordan
Exhibit 040
- When Wyoming Governor Joseph Carey telegraphed
Philander Knox news that the Wyoming legislature
had ratified the 16th Amendment on February
3, 1913, Philander Knox telegraphed in return
as follows: “Replying to your telegram of 3rd
you are requested to furnish a certified copy
of Wyoming’s ratification of Income Tax Amendment
so there may be no question as to the compliance
with Section 205 of Revised Statutes.”
See Letter from Knox to Carey
Exhibit 041
- Admit that on February 15, 1913, a State department attorney,
J. Rueben Clarke, informed Secretary of State Philander
Knox, in reference to the State of Minnesota, “the secretary
of the Governor merely informed the Department that the
state legislature had ratified the proposed amendment.”
J. Rueben Clarke Memo
Exhibit 042
- Admit that, in the official records deposited in the Archives
of the United States, there is no certified copy of the
resolution of the Minnesota legislature ratifying the
16th Amendment.
See National Book of state ratification documents:
Minnesota
Exhibit 043a
- Admit that in the documents possessed by the Archives
of the United States, there are no certified copies of
the resolutions ratifying the 16th Amendment by California
and Kentucky.
See National Book of state ratification documents:
California and Kentucky
Exhibit 043b, 043c
- a. Admit that the Kentucky Senate voted 22 to 9
against ratification of the 16th Amendment.
See Senate Journal
Exhibit 043d
Mirror
Mirror
- Admit that Mr. John Ashcroft is currently the Attorney
General of the United States.
(Common Knowledge)
- Admit that when Mr Ashcroft was Governor of Missouri,
the Missouri Supreme Court rendered the following decision
in a case involving Mr. Ashcroft, that case being Ashcroft
v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. banc 1985), where the
Missouri Supreme Court held:
"The senate and the house must agree on the exact text of any
bill before they may send it to the governor. There may not be the
slightest variance. The exact bill passed by the houses must be presented
to and signed by the governor before it may become law (laying aside
as not presently material alternative procedure by which a bill may
become law without the governor's signature.) The governor has no
authority to sign into law a bill which varies in any respect from
the bill passed by the houses."
See Ashcroft v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. banc 1985)
Exhibit 044
- Admit that during hearings regarding the ratification
of the 16th Amendment in Massachusetts, Mr. Robert Luce
made the following statement to the Massachusetts Committee
on Federal Relations: Question by the committee: Are
we able to change it? Mr. Luce: "No, you must either
accept or reject it.”
See "The Law That Never Was" by Bill Benson: Statement
by Luce to Committee of Federal Realtions
Exhibit 045
Admit that on February 11, 1910, Kentucky Governor
Augustus Wilson wrote a letter to the Kentucky House
of Representatives wherein he stated as follows:
"This resolution was adopted without jurisdiction
of the joint resolution of the Congress of the United
States which had not been transmitted to and was
not before the General Assembly, and in this resolution
the words on incomes were left out of the resolution
of the Congress, and if transmitted in this form
would be void and would subject the Commonwealth
to unpleasant comment and for these reasons and
because a later resolution correcting the omission
is reported to have passed both Houses, this resolution
is returned to the House of Representatives without
my approval."
See KY Governor Letter
Exhibit 046
- Admit that no state may change the wording of an amendment
proposed by Congress.
See "How Our Laws Are Made" and Letter from Senator
Hollings
Exhibit 047, 047a
It
Never Happened—Government Admits
- Admit that on February 15, 1913, J. Reuben Clarke, an
attorney employed by the Department of State, drafted
a memorandum to Secretary Knox wherein the following
statements were made:
“The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors
only of capitalization or punctuation, while those of
eleven states contain errors in the wording” (page 7).
“Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution
a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the
amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the
legislature consisting merely in the right to approve
or disapprove the proposed amendment.” (emphasis added)
See J. Rueben Clark Memo
Exhibit 042
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows:
“Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay
and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source
derived, without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
See U.S. Constitution amendment XVI
Exhibit 048
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
“Article 16: The Congress shall have power to lay
and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source
derived, without apportionment among the several
states, and from any census or enumeration.”
See Oklahoma's Resolution
Exhibit 048a
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
“Article XVI. Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes from whatever source derived without apportionment among
the several states, and without regard to census enumeration.”
See California's Resolution
Exhibit 048b
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
“Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes
on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among
the several states, and without regard to any census or renumeration..”
See Illinois' Resolution
Exhibit 048c
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
“Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay
and collect taxes from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
See National Book of State Ratification Documents:
Kentucky
Exhibit 048d
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
“The Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income
from whatever sources derived without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, which amendment
was approved on the ---- day of July, 1909.”
See Georgia's Resolution
Exhibit 048e
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
“Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay
and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source
derived without apportionment among the several
states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”
See MIssissippi's Resolution
Exhibit 048f
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
“Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay
and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source
derived, with-out apportionment among the several
states, and without regard to any census of enumeration:”
See Idaho's Resolution
Exhibit 048g
- Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
“Article XVI. The congress shall have power to levy
and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source
derived, without apportionment among the several
states, and without regard to any census or enumeration,
and did submit the same to the legislatures of the
several states for ratification;”
See Missouri's Resolution
Exhibit 048h
Constitution
Sez So
- Admit that state officials who prepare and send “official
notice” of ratification of constitutional amendments
to federal officials in Washington, D.C., do not have
any authority to change the wording of the ratification
resolution actually adopted by the State legislature.
See "How Our Laws Are Made."
Exhibit 047
- a. Admit that the following states were included
on Knox's list of 38 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
See Knox's Proclamation
Exhibit 039a
- b. Admit that the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment
was never properly and legally approved by the Georgia
State Senate.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 81-88
Exhibit 048i
- c. Admit that the actions taken by the state legislatures
of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington,
and Wyoming, in acting on the proposed 16th Amendment,
were violative of certain provisions of their state constitutions,
which were in effect AND CONTROLLING at the time those
states purportedly ratified the 16th Amendment.
See The Law That Never Was
Exhibit: Book, Volume I
The
Great 38...28...18...8...ZERO
- d. Admit that the state of Tennessee violated Article
II, Section 32 of the Tennessee Constitution by denying
the people an opportunity to vote for their state legislators
between the time the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution was submitted to the Tennessee
legislature and the time the legislature voted to approve
the amendment.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 213-217
Exhibit 048j
- e. Admit that the state legislature of Tennessee
violated Article II, Section 18 of the Tennessee Constitution
by failing to read (and pass), on three different days,
the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 213-217
Exhibit 048j
- f. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Tennessee state legislature violated Article
II, Sections 28 and 29 of the Tennessee Constitution,
which prohibited the legislature from voting to impose
an income tax on the people of Tennessee.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 213-217
Exhibit 048j
Arizona
To Michigan—The Naughty Nine
- g. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Arizona state legislature violated Article
IX, Section 9 of the State Constitution, which prohibited
the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed
a tax on the people of Arizona unless the amount of the
tax was fixed in the bill. (
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 243-250
Exhibit 048k
- h. Admit that the state Senate of Arizona violated
Article IV, Part 2, Section 12 of the State Constitution
by failing to read, on three different days, the bill
containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 243-250
Exhibit 048k
- i. Admit that the presiding officer of the state
Senate of Arizona violated Article IV, Part 2, Section
15 of the State Constitution by failing to sign, in open
session, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income
tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 243-250
Exhibit 048k
- j. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Arkansas state legislature violated Article
XVI, Section 11 of the State Constitution, which prohibited
the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed
a tax on the people of Arkansas, unless the bill specified
the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under
that bill would be applied.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 219-225
Exhibit 048l
- k. Admit that the state Senate of Arkansas violated
Article V, Section 22 of the State Constitution by failing
to read, on three different days, the bill containing
the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 219-225
Exhibit 048l
- l. Admit that after the Governor vetoed the bill
approving the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment the
Arkansas state legislature did not take the matter up
again.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 219-225
Exhibit 048l
- m. Admit that the state Senate of California violated
Article 4, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing
to read, on three different days, the bill containing
the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 119-123
Exhibit 048m
- n. Admit that the state Assembly of California
violated Article 4, Section 15 of the State Constitution
by failing to record the Yeas and Nays on the vote on
the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 119-123
Exhibit 048m
- o. Admit that the Senate and the House of the Colorado
legislature violated Article V, Section 22 of the State
Constitution by failing to read, on three different days,
the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 167-172
Exhibit 048n
- p. Admit that the state Senate of Idaho violated
Article III, Section 15 of the State Constitution by
failing to read, section by section, just prior to the
vote, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax)
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 101-105
Exhibit 048o
- q. Admit that the state legislature of Idaho violated
Article VI, Section 10 of the State Constitution by failing
to send to the Governor the "approved" bill containing
the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 101-105
Exhibit 048o
- r. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Illinois state Senate violated Article
IV, Section 13 of the State Constitution, by failing
to print the bill containing the proposed 16th (income
tax) Amendment before the final vote was taken and by
failing to read the bill on three different days.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 51-53
Exhibit 048p
- s. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Kansas state legislature violated Article
11, Section 205 of the State Constitution, which prohibited
the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed
a tax on the people of Kansas, unless the bill specified
the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under
that bill would be applied.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 161-166
Exhibit 048q
- t. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Kansas state Senate violated Article 2,
Section 128 of the State Constitution, by failing to
record the vote on the bill containing the proposed 16th
(income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 161-166
Exhibit 048q
- u. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Kansas state House of Representatives violated
Article 2, Section 133 of the State Constitution, by
failing to read, section by section, the bill containing
the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. (
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 161-166
Exhibit 048q
- v. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Louisiana state legislature violated Articles
224 and 227of the Louisiana Constitution, which prohibited
the legislature from voting to impose a federal income
tax on the people of Louisiana
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 257-260
Exhibit 048r
- w. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Michigan state legislature violated Article
X, Section 6 of the State Constitution, which prohibited
the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed
a tax on the people of Michigan unless the bill specified
the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under
that bill would be applied.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 179-183
Exhibit 048s
Mississippi
to Wyoming—The Exasperating Eight
- x. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Mississippi state House of Representatives
violated Article IV, Section 59 of the State Constitution,
by failing to read, three times on three different days,
the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 55-60
Exhibit 048t
- y. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Mississippi state Senate violated
Article IV, Section 59 of the State Constitution, by
failing to read the bill, in full, immediately before
the vote on its final passage.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 55-60
Exhibit 048t
- z. Admit that in voting to approve the income tax
Amendment the Missouri state legislature violated Articles
X, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibited
the legislature from voting to impose a federal income
tax on the people of Louisiana
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 191-194
Exhibit 048v
- aa. Admit that the Missouri state legislature violated
Articles V, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution,
which required the legislature to submit to the governor,
the bill "approving" the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 191-194
Exhibit 048v
- bb. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Montana state House of Representatives
violated Article V, Section 22 of the State Constitution
by failing to print the bill containing the proposed
16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
prior to the vote on its passage.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 125-131
Exhibit 048w
- cc. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the presiding officer of the Montana state
violated Article V, Section 27 of the State Constitution
by failing to publicly read, in open session, the bill
containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, just prior to signing the bill.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 125-131
Exhibit 048w
- dd. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the New Mexico state legislature (both
the Senate and the House), violated the Article IV, Section
20 of the State Constitution requiring enrollment and
engrossment, public reading in full, signing by the presiding
officers and the recording of all those acts in the journals.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 279-282
Exhibit 048x
- ee. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the New Mexico state House of Representatives
violated Article IV, Section 15 of the State Constitution,
by failing to read, three times on three different days,
the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 279-282
Exhibit 048x
- ff. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the North Dakota state legislature (both
the Senate and the House), violated the Article II, Section
64 of the State Constitution, which requires re-enactment
and publication of amendments.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 173-178
Exhibit 048y
- gg. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the North Dakota state legislature (both
the Senate and the House), violated the Article II, Section
63 of the State Constitution, which required three readings
of the bill, at length, on three separate days,
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 173-178
Exhibit 048y
- hh. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Texas House of Representatives violated
Article III, Section 37 of the State Constitution by
voting on the bill before the bill was reported out of
a Committee.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 89-96
Exhibit 048z
- ii. Admit that in voting to approve the income
tax Amendment the Texas state legislature violated Article
III, Section 48 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibited
the legislature from voting to impose a federal income
tax on the people of Texas.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 89-96
Exhibit 048z
- jj. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the presiding officer of the Texas Senate
violated Article III, Section 38 of the State Constitution
by failing to publicly read, in open session, the bill
containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, just prior to signing the bill.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 89-96
Exhibit 048z
- kk. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Texas state legislature violated Article
III, Section 33 of the State Constitution, which required
the House to act first on all money bills.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 89-96
Exhibit 048z
- ll. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Washington state legislature violated
Article VII, Section 2 of the State Constitution, which
prohibited the legislature from imposing a tax upon the
people of the state unless the tax was a uniform and
equal rate of taxation.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 113-118
Exhibit 048aa
- mm. Admit that the Washington state legislature
violated Articles III, Section 12 of the Washington Constitution,
which required the legislature to submit to the governor,
the bill "approving" the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 113-118
Exhibit 048aa
- nn. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Wyoming state legislature violated
Article XV, Section 13 of the State Constitution, which
prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill,
which imposed a tax on the people of Wyoming unless the
bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax
to be imposed under that bill would be applied.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 265-271
Exhibit 048bb
- oo. Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income
tax) Amendment the Wyoming state legislature violated
Article III, Section 20 of the State Constitution, by
voting only on the title of the bill.
See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 265-271
Exhibit 048bb
1913
Slave Tax Begins—200? Slave Tax Ends
- Admit that the “income” tax at subtitle A of the Internal
Revenue Code cannot be lawfully and constitutionally
collected if the 16th Amendment is not a valid amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
See Parker v. C.I.R., 724 F2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984)
Exhibit 049
- Admit that the income taxes imposed by Subtitle A are
not apportioned, so if the 16th Amendment was not ratified,
the taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not constitutional
under Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 158
U.S. 601 (1895).
Exhibit 032
- Admit that in 1913, Congress passed the following income
tax act:
"A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied,
assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire
net income arising or accruing from all sources
in the preceding calendar year to every citizen
of the United States, whether residing at home or
abroad, and to every person residing in the United
States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1
per centum . . . and a like tax shall be assessed,
levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire
net income from all property owned and of every
business, trade, or profession carried on in the
United States by persons residing elsewhere."
See 38 Statute166 (Oct. 3, 1913)
Exhibit 050
-
Admit that Mr. Brushaber challenged this income tax
as being unconstitutional.
See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240
U.S. 1 (1915)
Exhibit 051
- Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United
States Supreme Court held that the tax on income was
an excise tax.
See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S.
1, 18-19 (1915); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,
240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)
Exhibits 051,
052
- Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United
States Supreme Court held that the purpose of the 16th
Amendment was to prevent the income tax from being taken
out of the class of excise taxes where it rightly belonged.
See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S.
1, 18-19 (1915)
Exhibit 051
- Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United
States Supreme Court discarded the notion that a direct
tax could be relieved from apportionment, because to
so hold would destroy the two great classifications of
taxes.
See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S.
1, 18-19 (1915)
Exhibit 051
- Admit that the Union Pacific Railroad was a United States
Corporation located in the Utah Territory.
See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S.
1, 18-19 (1915)
Exhibit 051
- Admit that the privilege of operating as a corporation
can be taxed as an excise.
See corporation excise case, provided by Becraft
Exhibit 053
- Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189,
205-206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held
a tax on income was a direct tax, but could be imposed
without apportionment because the 16th Amendment gave
Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among
the several States, and without regard to any census
or enumeration.
See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-206 (1920)
Exhibit 054
A
Direct Tax Without Authority
Void For Vagueness (Teenage Nonsense)
It's Dangerous To Be Right When The Government Is Wrong
- Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Eisner:
- The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in
connection with the taxing clauses of the original
Constitution and the effect attributed to them
before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock
v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S.
601, under the Act of August 27, 1894, c. 349,
section 27, 28 Statute509, 553, it was held
that taxes upon rents and profits of real property
were in effect direct taxes upon the property
from which such income arose, imposed by reason
of ownership; and that Congress could not impose
such taxes without apportioning them among
the States according to population, as required
by Art.I, section 2, c1.3, and section 9, cl.4,
of the original Constitution.
- Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of
the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress
thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was
adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object
to be accomplished: “The Congress shall
have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment
among the several States, and without regard
to any census or enumeration.” As repeatedly
held, this did not extend the taxing power
to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity
which otherwise might exist for an apportionment
among the States of taxes laid on income. (Citing
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.,
240 U.S. at 17-19) (other citations omitted).
- A proper regard for its genesis, as well as
its very clear language, requires also that
this Amendment shall not be extended by loose
construction, so as to repeal or modify, except
as applied to income, those provisions of the
Constitution that require an apportionment
according to population for direct taxes upon
property, real and personal. This limitation
still has an appropriate and important function,
and is not to be over ridden by Congress or
disregarded by the courts.
- In order, therefore, that the clauses cited
from Article I of the Constitution may
have proper force and effect, save only as
modified by the Amendment, and that the latter
also may have proper effect, it becomes essential
to distinguish between what is and what is
not “income” as the term is there used; and
to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according
to truth and substance, without regard to form.
Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt
conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation
alter the Constitution, from which alone it
derives its power to legislate, and within
whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully
exercised.
See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189,
205-206 (1920)
Exhibit 054
- Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Second
Circuit take the position that the income tax is an indirect
tax.
See Ficalora v. C.I.R., 751 F.2d 85 (2nd Cir. 1984)
Exhibit 055
- Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Fifth
Circuit take the position that the income tax is a direct
tax.
See Lonsdale v. C.I.R., 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1984)
Exhibit 056
- Admit that President Regan said:
"I just wanted to speak to you about something from
the Internal Revenue Code. It is the last sentence of
section 509A of the code and it reads: 'For purposes
of paragraph 3, an organization described in paragraph
2 shall be deemed to include an organization described
in section 501C-4, 5, or 6, which would be described
in paragraph 2 if it were an organization described in
section 501C-3.' And that's just one sentence out of
those fifty-seven feet of books."
-- Ronald Reagan, also:
"Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible,
utterly unjust and completely counterproductive [it]
reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American...
it has earned a rebellion and it's time we rebelled"
President Ronald Reagan, May 1983, Williamsburg, VA.
See Misc. Quotes
Exhibit 057
- Admit that when Supreme Court Justices, Judges of the
Courts of Appeals, and Presidents of the United States
are unable to determine what a law is, that law is ambiguous.
See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct.
1855 (1983)
Exhibit 058
The
Income Tax Will Not Touch One Hair On A Working Man's Head—And Other
Fairytales
- Admit that when a law is ambiguous, it is unconstitutional
and cannot be enforced.
See Lanzetta v.State
of New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939)
Exhibit 059
- a. Admit that the "void for vagueness doctrine"
of the Supreme Court was described in U.S. v. DeCadena
as follows:
"The essential purpose of the "void for vagueness doctrine"
with respect to interpretation of a criminal statute,
is to warn individuals of the criminal consequences of
their conduct. ... Criminal statutes which fail to give
due notice that an act has been made criminal before
it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process
of law."
See U.S. v. De Cadena, 105 F.Supp. 202, 204 (1952),
emphasis added
Exhibit 059d
- Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution recognized
two classes of taxes, direct taxes and indirect taxes.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157
U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Exhibit 032, 033
- Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at
Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3 and Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 4,
required apportionment of all direct taxes.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157
U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Exhibit 032,
033
- Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at
Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1, required all indirect
taxes to be uniform.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157
U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Exhibit 032, 033
- Admit that in 1894, no one doubted that an excise tax
was an indirect tax as opposed to a direct tax.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157
U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Exhibit 032, 033
- Admit that in 1894 Congress passed the following income
tax act:
"Sec. 27. That from and after the first day of January,
eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and until the first
day of January, nineteen hundred, there shall be assessed,
levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains,
profits, and income received in the preceding calendar
year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing
at home or abroad, and every person residing therein,
whether said gains, profits, or income be derived from
any kind of property rents, interest, dividends, or salaries,
or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation
carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from
any other source whatever, a tax of two per centum on
the amount so derived over and above four thousand dollars,
and a like tax shall be levied, collected, and paid annually
upon the gains, profits, and income from all property
owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried
on in the United States. And the tax herein provided
for shall be assessed, by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue and collected, and paid upon the gains, profits
and income for the year ending the thirty-first day of
December next preceding the time for levying, collecting,
and paying said Tax."
See 28 Statute509, c 349, Section 27, p. 553 (August
27, 1894)
Exhibit 060
- Admit that Mr. Pollock, a citizen of the State of Massachusetts,
challenged the 1894 income tax on the grounds that the
tax imposed was a direct tax that was not apportioned.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust, 157 U.S.
429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Exhibits 032, 033
- Admit that the majority of the justices of the United
States Supreme Court found that the 1894 tax at Sec.
27 was a direct tax.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust, 158 U.S.
601, 618, 630-631 (1895)
Exhibit 033
- Admit that the minority of the justices of the United
States Supreme Court in the Pollock case believed
the 1894 tax at Sec. 27 was an indirect tax.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust, 157 U.S.
429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Exhibits 032,
033
- Admit that the United States Supreme Court held the 1894
income tax was unconstitutional as being in violation
of the apportionment requirements for direct taxes.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust, 157 U.S.
429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Exhibits 032,
033
- Admit that in 1909, President Taft called a special session
of Congress for the purpose of amending the apportionment
requirement of income taxes.
See Taft Speech, 1909
Exhibit 061
- Admit that during the congressional debate on the income
tax amendment, it was stated that the income tax would
not touch one hair of a working man’s head.
See Congressional Record excerpts
Exhibit 062
Connect
the Dots and Discover Who Was Philander Knox
Thank
You Mr. Benson
|
