quote:

---

Originally posted by the 16th amendment of the us constitution

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

---

quote:

---

no more wasting time on mindless fluff

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fluffy

Hey Zachmozach, in direct response to your last post I thought I would finally share this info since it seems like someone is actually interested in learning more about it. Wanted to mention it sooner but didn't know if anyone would pay attention. LOL TR and myself were introduced to Stephen A. Zarlenga by Dennis Kucinich. When we played in Cincinati, Dennis brought Stephen to dinner with us and Stephen presented TR with a copy of his book, "The Lost Science of Money". After TR read the book he was blown away and he passed it off to me to read and BOY! what an eye-opening book. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand a little better how the monetary system ACTUALLY works(or doesn't hehe) and how we got in the state we are currently in and offers great alternatives to getting out of this situation.

---

quote:

---

The film linked below, made by the late Aaron Russo, explores the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, and the bankers behind both. It shows why we must pay a tax on our labor, something which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. If you have ever wondered what the big deal regarding the Income Tax is, why people such as Irwin Schiff, Ed and Elaine Brown, and countless others are willing to risk life and limb to oppose it, then wonder no more. Through interviews, documents, and laws, Russo shows why every American should count themselves among the 'countless others' opposed to the Income Tax, and why this documentary may very well be the most important film you'll ever watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

---

quote:

---

By David Franke
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
July 9, 1999

WASHINGTON -- Evidence strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.

"If this evidence is true, the income tax is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," says Robert L. Schulz.

Schulz is head of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., a New York state-based organization that hosted a symposium in Washington last week on the topic, "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?" The foundation twice sent registered letters to President Clinton, Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, asking them to send representatives to the symposium who could explain the government's case for the legality of the income tax. They received no response, much less a speaker, but part of the conference was covered by C-SPAN and that resulted in hundreds of friendly responses from viewers.

A key speaker at the symposium was William J. Benson, author of a two-volume investigative report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment entitled "The Law That Never Was."

Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get his case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount," he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.

What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax -- the granddaddy of the state income taxes -- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.

That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.

In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."

All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.

The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here's the story:

Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.

Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.

Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.

Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.

And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.

Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Suppress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."

Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.

"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."

And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.

"I now have to use a cane and walker, and often a wheelchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."

An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeopardy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.

This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.

The latest chapter in Benson's saga is the counterattack.

"As soon as I get back to Illinois I'm suing them -- every one of them," Benson told WorldNetDaily -- and he started listing them: four U.S. attorneys, a first assistant U.S. attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. All except the judge, that is. "I could sue the judge -- no question -- but I'm not going to do that," Benson added.

"Fear is the worst thing you face," said Benson of his prison experiences. And now it's time for the prosecutors who were his persecutors to be afraid.

---

quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- Evidence strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.

"If this evidence is true, the income tax is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," says Robert L. Schulz.

Schulz is head of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., a New York state-based organization that hosted a symposium in Washington last week on the topic, "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?" The foundation twice sent registered letters to President Clinton, Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, asking them to send representatives to the symposium who could explain the government's case for the legality of the income tax. They received no response, much less a speaker, but part of the conference was covered by C-SPAN and that resulted in hundreds of friendly responses from viewers.

A key speaker at the symposium was William J. Benson, author of a two-volume investigative report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment entitled "The Law That Never Was."

Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get his case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount," he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.

What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax -- the granddaddy of the state income taxes -- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.

That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.

In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."

All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.

The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here's the story:

Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.

Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only 1. later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.

2. Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.

3. Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.

4. And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.

Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Suppress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."

Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.

"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."

And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and 5. "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.

"I now have to use a cane and walker, and often a wheelchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."

An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeopardy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.

This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.

The latest chapter in Benson's saga is the counterattack.

"As soon as I get back to Illinois I'm suing them -- every one of them," Benson told WorldNetDaily -- and he started listing them: four U.S. attorneys, a first assistant U.S. attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. All except the judge, that is. "I could sue the judge -- no question -- but I'm not going to do that," Benson added.

"[b]6. Fear is the worst thing you face," said Benson of his prison experiences. And now it's time for the prosecutors who were his persecutors to be afraid.

---

quote:

---

1. so those two states did pass it?
2. how were their constitutions violated?
3. you know it's 10 points off every day that it's late, right? minnesota fails. as usual.
4. what changes?
5. proof that the government intentionally gave him the wrong meds to hurt him? wasn't some sort of mistake? those happen.
6. that and ass rape.

edit: the bolding is all fucked up but i don't know how to fix it.

---

quote:

---

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th 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. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dan p.
5- was he forced to take them. they actually gave him the meds against his will? or did he just take whatever drugs they gave him?

---

quote:

---

Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication

---

quote:

---

1, 2, 4- extensive! thank you very much for digging that up. a little vague in parts, maybe, and i didn't see anything about taxechussets, but that's some very interesting information. i'll definitely start looking at the constitutions for those states and maybe have to revise my stance here.

---

quote:

---

That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rubylith
Haha
I'm emailing you soon bro. Can you come to NYC next weekend??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rubylith

No it was to you, but Dan is always welcome. There will be video next week. I am really excited, actually my nerves are shot. Alot of preperation for 9/11/07.

www.wearechange.org/91107

---