-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Opting out of SS
- Thread starter WHAT HAPPENED
- Start date
-
- Tags
- social security tax
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.
This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.
After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913). The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "ineffect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.
We The People Features - Taxes - Philander Knox
Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".
OOO and here are those pesky FACTS that get in the way all the time
Source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- IRS Loses
IRS Loses: Unrecorded deed beats IRS.
A couple deeded real estate to their son shortly before the IRS tried to put a lien on the real estate to collect their past-due taxes. The IRS argued that the deed was invalid because it had not been recorded in the county courthouse as the law required.
Court:
A deed is recorded to give notice to third parties of a property's status. But because an IRS agent who had been dealing with the couple had been aware of the transaction, such notice was not required for the IRS. Thus, the deed was effective. Because it conveyed the property before the IRS issued the tax liens, the property escapes the liens. Arthur D. Dalessandro, M.D. Pa., No. 3 :CV-93-00105.
IRS Loses: Fifth Amendment rights preserved.
The IRS selected John Berry for a random audit, but he refused to comply, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The IRS then summoned all of Berry's tax records.
District Court:
The summons against Berry was invalid because the IRS didn't know that the summoned records existed. Forcing Berry to produce records would in effect make him testify against himself by admitting that the records did exist.
IRS Loses: Late amended claim is allowed.
A refund claim was filed just before the filing deadline. After the deadline, the taxpayer discovered that the refund had been underestimated and filed an amended claim for a larger amount. But the IRS said it was too late.
Court:
The new claim was simply an adjustment of the original, timely claim, so it was allowed.
IRS Loses: Article By David Cay Johnston.
The Internal Revenue Service committed fraud by brokering secret deals with two airline pilots to let them escape taxes in return for testifying against 1,300 other pilots who bought into the same tax shelters, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said that the remedy for this "extreme misconduct" by the I.R.S. was to give all of the pilots the same corrupt deal that one of the pilots got.
That pilot, John R. Thompson, settled his taxes from the shelter for a dime on the dollar, but actually paid nothing, court papers show. Instead, Mr. Thompson received a $60,000 refund through falsified tax returns prepared with the help of the I.R.S. That money paid his legal fees. He also pocketed $20,000 in interest, court papers show.
The ruling will require the I.R.S. to pay tens of millions of dollars in tax refunds, interest and legal fees, said Michael Louis Minns, a Houston tax lawyer who represented some of the pilots. One pilot, who paid the disputed taxes more than two decades ago and then took the I.R.S. to tax court, is due about $6 million, Mr. Minns said.
Some pilots, who did not pay the taxes, will receive nothing, but will have tax liens removed from their homes, Mr. Minns said.
An I.R.S. spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, said yesterday that the agency had no comment.
The case involves tax shelters sold in the 1970's and early 1980's by Henry Kersting, who was a German U-boat commander in World War II. He sold tax shelters from his Honolulu office until he died three years ago.
The I.R.S. uncovered this Kersting scheme, which involved fabricating debt that clients could deduct on their tax returns. In 1981 it disallowed the deductions and sent bills to 1,300 pilots for additional taxes and penalties.
The appeals court said that rather than try the case honestly, two I.R.S. lawyers made a secret deal with Mr. Thompson and a second pilot that let them escape taxes in return for giving testimony favorable to the I.R.S. "The taxpayers have clearly and convincingly demonstrated fraud on the court and are entitled to relief," the judges wrote, noting that the fraud continued through two separate trials in tax court. "The I.R.S. had an opportunity to present its case fairly and properly."
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins criticized the I.R.S. for not taking serious action against its lawyers, Kenneth W. McWade, who tried the case, and his supervisor, William A. Sims. The court said the two lawyers "defiled the sanctity of the court and the confidence of all future litigants."
The I.R.S. "has done little to punish the misconduct and even less to dissuade future abuse," Judge Hawkins wrote. He noted that both lawyers received $1,000 bonuses from the I.R.S. for their work in the case. They also received two week suspensions, after which Mr. McWade retired. Mr. Sims continues as an I.R.S. lawyer.
Mr. McWade and Mr. Sims, in testimony, insisted that they had behaved properly at all times. Mr. Minns says that he wants both men disbarred, but cannot find a record of their law licenses. He said he wrote to the I.R.S., which replied that it was unaware of where they are licensed either, but noting that it only looked in a public directory of lawyers and not in its own files.
The court said it would be unfair to let the pilots escape the taxes they owed just because of the fraud by the I.R.S. So, instead, it directed the Tax Court to give each pilot a settlement "on terms equivalent to those provided in the settlement agreement" with Mr. Thompson.
IRS Loses: Can't collect interest after losing return for 11 years.
In 1987, an individual filed an amended tax return claiming a loss carryback that he thought paid off a prior year's tax. In 1998, during a later tax dispute, he received an in-explicable tax bill and asked the IRS about the amended 1987 return. The IRS then realized it had lost the return, found it, processed it-and added 11 years of interest to the tax bill. The individual protested. Court: The individual's tax in fact had been underpaid, but this was entirely due to the IRS's error in los-ing the amended return and not telling him the status of his tax bill even when he had asked. So the IRS must abate the interest charge.
Nicholas J. Pa/ihnich, TC Memo 2003-297.
IRS Loses: Conviction overturned due to abusive search warrant.
A tax professional was crimi-nally convicted of advising clients to cheat on their taxes. The IRS used evidence it obtained by seizing his computers, client files, correspondence, seminar videos, and many other business materials. But the adviser said the evidence had been obtained illegally and should be thrown out. Court of Appeals: The search warrant used by the IRS to seize the evidence was so expansive as to cover virtually anything in the adviser's office. Since it failed to be "reasonably specific" and state the activity being investigated, it was defective. So the ad-viser gets a new trial-without the ill gotten evidence.
Alfred G. Bridges. CA-9, No. 01-30316.
IRS Loses: Underreporting income isn't fraud.
John Maloney knowingly understated his income for a year. The IRS said this was fraud, so it could asses back taxes even though the status of limitations otherwise would have expired for the year.
Tax Court:
While Maloney had underreported his income for the year, he believed this merely offset the amount by which he had over reported his income the prior year. He also kept good books and records, gave all necessary information to his accountant, and cooperated with the IRS. None of this indicated and intent to evade tax - so there was no fraud and the limitations period did protect his return.
IRS Loses: Occasional inventor doesn’t owe self-employment tax.
Melvin Levinson operated a retail store for more than 40 years, and in his spare time created and patented various inventions. On his tax return, he reported royalty income from patents and settlement payments he received from a business that had infringed his patents. The IRS imposed self-employment tax on his invention related income.
Tax Court:
Levinson did not design inventions regularly or continuously, but only sporadically. Thus, he was not engaged in the “trade or business” of inventing, and does not owe self-employment tax on his invention-related income.
IRS Loses: Lack of fraud saves businessman from paying tax.
The IRS sent a tax deficiency notice to a businessman more than three years after he filled his tax return. It said the statute of limitations shouldn’t apply because he had committed tax fraud. It claimed his tax underpayments were consistent with acknowledged skill in business – and pointed out he previously been convicted of filing a false return.
Tax Court:
Tax fraud consists of activity hiding income from the IRS, and the IRS had no evidence that the businessman had done that. Underpaying taxes is not fraud, and neither is filing a false return. So the three-year limit applied and the businessman was safe from tax.
IRS Loses: Must cooperate with request for information.
Louis Peyton filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the IRS for documents indexed under his name regarding a criminal case being investigated by an IRS agent in Virginia. The IRS refused, saying the request wasn’t specific enough and hadn’t been filed in the Richmond, Virginia office.
Court:
The IRS, like other government agencies, is capable of finding documents indexed under an individual’s name – so long as sufficient information has been provided to it. And the IRS is capable of forwarding the request to its Richmond Office itself. It was ordered to comply with the FOIA request.
IRS Loses: Taxpayer keeps excess refund.
The IRS mistakenly double-credited Raymond O’Bryant’s account for a $28,000 tax payment he had made. And they sent him a refund in the same amount, plus interest. Later the IRS realized its error, said the original tax bill remained unpaid, and put a lien on O’Bryant’s property.
Court:
The original tax debt was extinguished when O’Bryant made his payment. The problems that followed were the fault of the IRS. To recover the refund, it had to bring a separate action - and it had failed to do so before the stature of limitations ran out. So the lien was lifted and O’Bryant kept the refund.
IRS Loses: Must release its own valuation expert’s report.
Richard Bennett claimed a $236,000 deduction for items he donated to a charity, but the IRS said the items had no value and disallowed the entire deduction. Later, Bennett learned that the IRS initial appraisal of the items said they did have value – and that the IRS then obtained a second opinion form another appraiser who said they had no value. Bennett demanded that the IRS release its initial appraisal to him, but the IRS said that because it hadn’t used the initial appraisal it was irrelevant to the case.
Court:
The appraisal was relevant to the issue of the items’ value, so the IRS must produce it.
IRS Loses: Transposed street number voids notice.
The IRS mailed a deficiency notice to the wrong street number, “750” instead of “705”, but told the Tax Court that this didn’t matter because the local mail carrier knew the addressee and tried to deliver the notice to the correct address. However, the mail carrier did not testify.
Tax Court:
The deficiency notice had been mailed to the wrong address, and the IRS had presented no evidence showing that it had actually delivered to the right address so the notice was invalid.
IRS Loses: Deposit defeats levy.
An attorney held funds for a client who was being sued by several creditors who wanted the money, including the IRS. The IRS levied on the funds, but instead of turning them over, the attorney proposed to deposit them with the court and remove himself from the dispute. However, the IRS insisted on holding the attorney liable for the money.
Court:
For the attorney, it was reasonable for him to turn funds over to the court until the issue was decided. And because he never made any claim to the funds himself, it was reasonable to prevent - including the IRS - from holding him accountable for them.
IRS Loses: Conviction overturned.
When the IRS brought a criminal charge against Bernhard Manko for tax fraud, he tried to get into evidence the fact that
Court of Appeals:
in an earlier civil tax proceeding the IRS had agreed to a compromise settlement of the same tax bill that it now said was fraudulent. Mr. Manko said that by agreeing to the compromise the IRS had admitted that his tax position was at least partly legitimate. But the court barred the compromise agreement as evidence and Mr. Manko was convicted. He appealed. Court of appeals: For Mr. Manko. The agreement should have been admitted as evidence, so the conviction is vacated.
This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.
After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913). The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "ineffect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.
We The People Features - Taxes - Philander Knox
Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".
OOO and here are those pesky FACTS that get in the way all the time
Source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- IRS Loses
IRS Loses: Unrecorded deed beats IRS.
A couple deeded real estate to their son shortly before the IRS tried to put a lien on the real estate to collect their past-due taxes. The IRS argued that the deed was invalid because it had not been recorded in the county courthouse as the law required.
Court:
A deed is recorded to give notice to third parties of a property's status. But because an IRS agent who had been dealing with the couple had been aware of the transaction, such notice was not required for the IRS. Thus, the deed was effective. Because it conveyed the property before the IRS issued the tax liens, the property escapes the liens. Arthur D. Dalessandro, M.D. Pa., No. 3 :CV-93-00105.
IRS Loses: Fifth Amendment rights preserved.
The IRS selected John Berry for a random audit, but he refused to comply, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The IRS then summoned all of Berry's tax records.
District Court:
The summons against Berry was invalid because the IRS didn't know that the summoned records existed. Forcing Berry to produce records would in effect make him testify against himself by admitting that the records did exist.
IRS Loses: Late amended claim is allowed.
A refund claim was filed just before the filing deadline. After the deadline, the taxpayer discovered that the refund had been underestimated and filed an amended claim for a larger amount. But the IRS said it was too late.
Court:
The new claim was simply an adjustment of the original, timely claim, so it was allowed.
IRS Loses: Article By David Cay Johnston.
The Internal Revenue Service committed fraud by brokering secret deals with two airline pilots to let them escape taxes in return for testifying against 1,300 other pilots who bought into the same tax shelters, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said that the remedy for this "extreme misconduct" by the I.R.S. was to give all of the pilots the same corrupt deal that one of the pilots got.
That pilot, John R. Thompson, settled his taxes from the shelter for a dime on the dollar, but actually paid nothing, court papers show. Instead, Mr. Thompson received a $60,000 refund through falsified tax returns prepared with the help of the I.R.S. That money paid his legal fees. He also pocketed $20,000 in interest, court papers show.
The ruling will require the I.R.S. to pay tens of millions of dollars in tax refunds, interest and legal fees, said Michael Louis Minns, a Houston tax lawyer who represented some of the pilots. One pilot, who paid the disputed taxes more than two decades ago and then took the I.R.S. to tax court, is due about $6 million, Mr. Minns said.
Some pilots, who did not pay the taxes, will receive nothing, but will have tax liens removed from their homes, Mr. Minns said.
An I.R.S. spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, said yesterday that the agency had no comment.
The case involves tax shelters sold in the 1970's and early 1980's by Henry Kersting, who was a German U-boat commander in World War II. He sold tax shelters from his Honolulu office until he died three years ago.
The I.R.S. uncovered this Kersting scheme, which involved fabricating debt that clients could deduct on their tax returns. In 1981 it disallowed the deductions and sent bills to 1,300 pilots for additional taxes and penalties.
The appeals court said that rather than try the case honestly, two I.R.S. lawyers made a secret deal with Mr. Thompson and a second pilot that let them escape taxes in return for giving testimony favorable to the I.R.S. "The taxpayers have clearly and convincingly demonstrated fraud on the court and are entitled to relief," the judges wrote, noting that the fraud continued through two separate trials in tax court. "The I.R.S. had an opportunity to present its case fairly and properly."
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins criticized the I.R.S. for not taking serious action against its lawyers, Kenneth W. McWade, who tried the case, and his supervisor, William A. Sims. The court said the two lawyers "defiled the sanctity of the court and the confidence of all future litigants."
The I.R.S. "has done little to punish the misconduct and even less to dissuade future abuse," Judge Hawkins wrote. He noted that both lawyers received $1,000 bonuses from the I.R.S. for their work in the case. They also received two week suspensions, after which Mr. McWade retired. Mr. Sims continues as an I.R.S. lawyer.
Mr. McWade and Mr. Sims, in testimony, insisted that they had behaved properly at all times. Mr. Minns says that he wants both men disbarred, but cannot find a record of their law licenses. He said he wrote to the I.R.S., which replied that it was unaware of where they are licensed either, but noting that it only looked in a public directory of lawyers and not in its own files.
The court said it would be unfair to let the pilots escape the taxes they owed just because of the fraud by the I.R.S. So, instead, it directed the Tax Court to give each pilot a settlement "on terms equivalent to those provided in the settlement agreement" with Mr. Thompson.
IRS Loses: Can't collect interest after losing return for 11 years.
In 1987, an individual filed an amended tax return claiming a loss carryback that he thought paid off a prior year's tax. In 1998, during a later tax dispute, he received an in-explicable tax bill and asked the IRS about the amended 1987 return. The IRS then realized it had lost the return, found it, processed it-and added 11 years of interest to the tax bill. The individual protested. Court: The individual's tax in fact had been underpaid, but this was entirely due to the IRS's error in los-ing the amended return and not telling him the status of his tax bill even when he had asked. So the IRS must abate the interest charge.
Nicholas J. Pa/ihnich, TC Memo 2003-297.
IRS Loses: Conviction overturned due to abusive search warrant.
A tax professional was crimi-nally convicted of advising clients to cheat on their taxes. The IRS used evidence it obtained by seizing his computers, client files, correspondence, seminar videos, and many other business materials. But the adviser said the evidence had been obtained illegally and should be thrown out. Court of Appeals: The search warrant used by the IRS to seize the evidence was so expansive as to cover virtually anything in the adviser's office. Since it failed to be "reasonably specific" and state the activity being investigated, it was defective. So the ad-viser gets a new trial-without the ill gotten evidence.
Alfred G. Bridges. CA-9, No. 01-30316.
IRS Loses: Underreporting income isn't fraud.
John Maloney knowingly understated his income for a year. The IRS said this was fraud, so it could asses back taxes even though the status of limitations otherwise would have expired for the year.
Tax Court:
While Maloney had underreported his income for the year, he believed this merely offset the amount by which he had over reported his income the prior year. He also kept good books and records, gave all necessary information to his accountant, and cooperated with the IRS. None of this indicated and intent to evade tax - so there was no fraud and the limitations period did protect his return.
IRS Loses: Occasional inventor doesn’t owe self-employment tax.
Melvin Levinson operated a retail store for more than 40 years, and in his spare time created and patented various inventions. On his tax return, he reported royalty income from patents and settlement payments he received from a business that had infringed his patents. The IRS imposed self-employment tax on his invention related income.
Tax Court:
Levinson did not design inventions regularly or continuously, but only sporadically. Thus, he was not engaged in the “trade or business” of inventing, and does not owe self-employment tax on his invention-related income.
IRS Loses: Lack of fraud saves businessman from paying tax.
The IRS sent a tax deficiency notice to a businessman more than three years after he filled his tax return. It said the statute of limitations shouldn’t apply because he had committed tax fraud. It claimed his tax underpayments were consistent with acknowledged skill in business – and pointed out he previously been convicted of filing a false return.
Tax Court:
Tax fraud consists of activity hiding income from the IRS, and the IRS had no evidence that the businessman had done that. Underpaying taxes is not fraud, and neither is filing a false return. So the three-year limit applied and the businessman was safe from tax.
IRS Loses: Must cooperate with request for information.
Louis Peyton filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the IRS for documents indexed under his name regarding a criminal case being investigated by an IRS agent in Virginia. The IRS refused, saying the request wasn’t specific enough and hadn’t been filed in the Richmond, Virginia office.
Court:
The IRS, like other government agencies, is capable of finding documents indexed under an individual’s name – so long as sufficient information has been provided to it. And the IRS is capable of forwarding the request to its Richmond Office itself. It was ordered to comply with the FOIA request.
IRS Loses: Taxpayer keeps excess refund.
The IRS mistakenly double-credited Raymond O’Bryant’s account for a $28,000 tax payment he had made. And they sent him a refund in the same amount, plus interest. Later the IRS realized its error, said the original tax bill remained unpaid, and put a lien on O’Bryant’s property.
Court:
The original tax debt was extinguished when O’Bryant made his payment. The problems that followed were the fault of the IRS. To recover the refund, it had to bring a separate action - and it had failed to do so before the stature of limitations ran out. So the lien was lifted and O’Bryant kept the refund.
IRS Loses: Must release its own valuation expert’s report.
Richard Bennett claimed a $236,000 deduction for items he donated to a charity, but the IRS said the items had no value and disallowed the entire deduction. Later, Bennett learned that the IRS initial appraisal of the items said they did have value – and that the IRS then obtained a second opinion form another appraiser who said they had no value. Bennett demanded that the IRS release its initial appraisal to him, but the IRS said that because it hadn’t used the initial appraisal it was irrelevant to the case.
Court:
The appraisal was relevant to the issue of the items’ value, so the IRS must produce it.
IRS Loses: Transposed street number voids notice.
The IRS mailed a deficiency notice to the wrong street number, “750” instead of “705”, but told the Tax Court that this didn’t matter because the local mail carrier knew the addressee and tried to deliver the notice to the correct address. However, the mail carrier did not testify.
Tax Court:
The deficiency notice had been mailed to the wrong address, and the IRS had presented no evidence showing that it had actually delivered to the right address so the notice was invalid.
IRS Loses: Deposit defeats levy.
An attorney held funds for a client who was being sued by several creditors who wanted the money, including the IRS. The IRS levied on the funds, but instead of turning them over, the attorney proposed to deposit them with the court and remove himself from the dispute. However, the IRS insisted on holding the attorney liable for the money.
Court:
For the attorney, it was reasonable for him to turn funds over to the court until the issue was decided. And because he never made any claim to the funds himself, it was reasonable to prevent - including the IRS - from holding him accountable for them.
IRS Loses: Conviction overturned.
When the IRS brought a criminal charge against Bernhard Manko for tax fraud, he tried to get into evidence the fact that
Court of Appeals:
in an earlier civil tax proceeding the IRS had agreed to a compromise settlement of the same tax bill that it now said was fraudulent. Mr. Manko said that by agreeing to the compromise the IRS had admitted that his tax position was at least partly legitimate. But the court barred the compromise agreement as evidence and Mr. Manko was convicted. He appealed. Court of appeals: For Mr. Manko. The agreement should have been admitted as evidence, so the conviction is vacated.
There's a group of guys around here that spout all that income tax is voluntary stuff. They say that the State of Indiana doesn't exist as an entity, claim to be heads of their of their own religion, renounce their citizenship, claim to be aliens from out er space and argue that their houses are foreign countries. One of them even made some wacky argument that they were only subject to admiralty law because their homes were really ships in drydock. To date, one of them has lost his home and his business, another has spent 90 days in jail for contempt and they've had to pay the county's attorney fees on a couple of occaissions.
The only people I really know of that get to opt out of Social Security are the Amish, but in my opinion that's a pretty rough trade off just to get out of paying social security.
The only people I really know of that get to opt out of Social Security are the Amish, but in my opinion that's a pretty rough trade off just to get out of paying social security.
Interestingly enough, the Amish are only able to opt out of self employment tax. If they chose to work for an employer (Like a furniture or lumber mill) the employer is still required to deduct Social Security from their wages and match it with his contribution. These funds are never received by the Amish worker, however, since he has opted out of the system.
WHAT HAPPEN nice list of facts. I am not disputing them and have heard of some especially how the 1913 stuff was never really ratified by the STATES. At this point, however, be it true or not it makes no difference as at least 3 generations & close to 100 years have passed since the "lie" has continued that it would take the "act" we are not allowed to talk about to change this. Those 3 generations have grown and lived to believe that the income tax is legal and to them it **IS** since that is all they have known.
"WHAT HAPPENED" apparently had his mind made up before he got here or is simply trolling. For those who care, someone with time on their hands has already answered the crazies. Again "WHAT HAPPENED" what follows is not meant for you. Just let us know how it all turns out for you.
THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ
THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ
ok will do, I am going to see if I can get more people on board if not OOO weeelllllll.... It has to start somewhere. IM SICK OF BEING A SLAVE.
The more i find ill post here.....
source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- The Man
AT BOTTOM if you don't want to read the whole thing....
THE FRAUD
Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that three-fourths 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 February, 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment, including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But, as previously shown, Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different. If just these 3 states are excluded from the court of those which ratified, then the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. But, then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. If the process of the adoption of the amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny the amendment was adopted by none.
Today, the federal government pretends that it has all encompassing power to tax the income of everyone, and that the only way to change this system is to vote for congressmen who promise to modify or, even more unlikely, to repeal these laws. The American public needs to be apprised that another alternative exists, and that it is entirely possible to challenge the very foundation of this taxing power upon the grounds that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never adopted. This challenge can be effectively made by exercising your rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- Home
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.
The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.
source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- The Man
AT BOTTOM if you don't want to read the whole thing....
THE FRAUD
Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that three-fourths 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 February, 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment, including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But, as previously shown, Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different. If just these 3 states are excluded from the court of those which ratified, then the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. But, then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. If the process of the adoption of the amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny the amendment was adopted by none.
Today, the federal government pretends that it has all encompassing power to tax the income of everyone, and that the only way to change this system is to vote for congressmen who promise to modify or, even more unlikely, to repeal these laws. The American public needs to be apprised that another alternative exists, and that it is entirely possible to challenge the very foundation of this taxing power upon the grounds that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never adopted. This challenge can be effectively made by exercising your rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- Home
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.
The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.
Last edited:
Go for it.
The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s), Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.
According to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U. S. House of Representatives, the dates of ratification by the states were (chronologically): Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):
It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required. (Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)
Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a different constitutional amendment:
These technical arguments against the ratification of the 16th Amendment are troubling because they are so undemocratic (as are many other tax protester arguments). Except for a couple of claims about the votes of two states, there is really no doubt that Congress proposed an amendment that would give it the power to tax incomes, and that three fourths of the states approved the amendment. But tax protesters would like for the courts to nullify the amendment, and so nullify the power of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution, and so deny to the people the power to govern themselves, because of typographical errors.
But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are unable (or at least reluctant) to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).
Other decisions confirming (or refusing to consider) the validity of the 16th Amendment:
See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.
The claim that “[t]he Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a non-apportioned, direct income tax” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
Tax Protester “Evidence”
A related (and even sillier) claim made by tax protesters is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by Ohio was invalid because Ohio did not become a state until 1953(!). This strange claim is based on a strange action that Congress took in 1953 to confirm that Ohio was indeed a state. Briefly:
In a 1953 report to Congress, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress stated that the lack of a formal resolution “may be considered unessential.” (1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2126, 2128.) However, Ohio asked for a formal declaration, sending a new petition for statehood to Washington by horseback (yes, in 1953), and Congress complied (with a certain number of snide jokes), passing a joint resolution that declared Ohio to be one of the United States of America as of March 1, 1803. P.L. 82-204, 67 Stat. 407. The Senate Report to the resolution states that the purpose was “to make formal, legal declaration of the de facto situation with respect to the admission of Ohio as a State of the United States.” Senate Report No. 720, 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2124.
So the fact of the matter was that Ohio was accepted as a state of the United States sometime in 1802 or 1803 and Congress declared the admission to be as of a certain date in 1803, but the declaration was not made until 1953.
The argument that Ohio was not a state until 1953 was rejected in Knoblauch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 749 F2d 200, 201-202 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. den., 474 U.S. 830 (1986), and in Bowman v. Government of the United States, 920 F.Supp. 623, 625 n. 4 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s), Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.
According to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U. S. House of Representatives, the dates of ratification by the states were (chronologically): Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):
“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.
“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.
“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.
“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required. (Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)
Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a different constitutional amendment:
“The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 136-137 (1922).These technical arguments against the ratification of the 16th Amendment are troubling because they are so undemocratic (as are many other tax protester arguments). Except for a couple of claims about the votes of two states, there is really no doubt that Congress proposed an amendment that would give it the power to tax incomes, and that three fourths of the states approved the amendment. But tax protesters would like for the courts to nullify the amendment, and so nullify the power of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution, and so deny to the people the power to govern themselves, because of typographical errors.
But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are unable (or at least reluctant) to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).
Other decisions confirming (or refusing to consider) the validity of the 16th Amendment:
“Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’ ratification and validity.”
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998).“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations . . . .”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.
The claim that “[t]he Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a non-apportioned, direct income tax” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
Tax Protester “Evidence”
A related (and even sillier) claim made by tax protesters is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by Ohio was invalid because Ohio did not become a state until 1953(!). This strange claim is based on a strange action that Congress took in 1953 to confirm that Ohio was indeed a state. Briefly:
- By an act of April 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 173), section 1, Congress provided that “the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever.” (This was consistent with the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, which provided that there should be formed from the territory at least three but not more than five states.)
- A convention met in Ohio on November 1, 1802, and adopted a constitution on November 29, 1802.
- On January 19, 1803, a special committee of Congress reported that “the said Constitution and government so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of the ordinance made on the 13th day of July 1787, for the Government of the said Territory: and that it is now necessary to establish a district court within the said State, to carry into complete effect the laws of the United States within the same.” Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d sess., p. 21.
- Congress then enacted legislation to declare that all of the laws of the United States shall be in force within the state of Ohio and to establish a federal district court in Ohio, stating in the preamble that “the said state has become one of the United States of America.” Act of February 19, 1803 (2 Stat. 201).
- Ohio began sending Representatives and Senators to Congress, began voting in Presidential elections, and has been considered to be a state ever since.
In a 1953 report to Congress, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress stated that the lack of a formal resolution “may be considered unessential.” (1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2126, 2128.) However, Ohio asked for a formal declaration, sending a new petition for statehood to Washington by horseback (yes, in 1953), and Congress complied (with a certain number of snide jokes), passing a joint resolution that declared Ohio to be one of the United States of America as of March 1, 1803. P.L. 82-204, 67 Stat. 407. The Senate Report to the resolution states that the purpose was “to make formal, legal declaration of the de facto situation with respect to the admission of Ohio as a State of the United States.” Senate Report No. 720, 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2124.
So the fact of the matter was that Ohio was accepted as a state of the United States sometime in 1802 or 1803 and Congress declared the admission to be as of a certain date in 1803, but the declaration was not made until 1953.
The argument that Ohio was not a state until 1953 was rejected in Knoblauch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 749 F2d 200, 201-202 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. den., 474 U.S. 830 (1986), and in Bowman v. Government of the United States, 920 F.Supp. 623, 625 n. 4 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
So Congress creates laws orally hhhmmmm news to me... I think the person that wrote this is feeding a bunch of BS out...
source: The 16th Amendment was not ratified
Document 100.0.8.0 # 20 of 38 ...The 16th Amendment
was not ratified! The Income Tax is therefore illegal.
Note: As goes our nation in the push by the Socialist Council on Foreign
Relations, so goes the rest of the "free" world. The CFR through its
enforcement arm, the Communist United Nations, will eventually eliminate all
freedom in this world. Only you and I can stop it. Removing the funding
provided directly by the US Taxpayer (all of our income taxes go out of the
country) will be a huge blow to the Elitists who seek to be the world
dictator thru the UN.
{Philander Knox, Sec of State, 1909-1913, the Taft Administration,
proclaimed the 16th amendment to be ratified just a few days before he left
office in 1913 {sound familiar?}, to make way for the Wilson administration,
even though he knew it had not been legally ratified.
Philander Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, the Vanderbilts, the Mellons, and others. He had created for them the largest cartel in the
world, then was appointed, at their request, as the Attorney General in the
McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, where he refused to enforce the Sherman
anti-trust laws against the cartel he had just created.
The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen Nelson
Aldrich, father-in-law of John D Rockefeller Jr, and grandfather and
namesake of Nelson A Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox
had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.
Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted
Kentucky as having approved it.
Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it
meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but
Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment. Minnesota did not submit
any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as
approving the amendment.}
The following is copied directly from the USA Today, 23 March 2001, Friday
Edition. Page 8A and The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, March
26-April 1. It is sponsored by: We The People Foundation For Constitutional
Education, Inc., Give Me Liberty! Home of We The People projects and information!, E-mail: acta@capital.net; Ph:
518-656-3578. Fax: 518-656-9724. This is an ongoing educational process
appearing in this "newspaper" and the Washington Times Weekly National
Edition. I will use the symbols { } to indicate notes, etc that I may
insert. The Symbols ( ) and [ ] are used in the original articles
and will be shown here.
QUOTE:
Q: Do you have to file a federal tax return or pay an income tax?
A: These Experts say "NO"! [There are then the pictures of Bill Benson,
Author: "The Law that Never Was"; Larken Rose, Author: "Taxable Income";
John Kotmair, Founder and Fiduciary, Save-a-Patriot Fellowship and Liberty
Works Radio Network]..
Read the Facts and Judge the truth for yourself.
>The original Constitution prohibits the Congress from laying a DIRECT
(income) tax on the People unless it is in PROPORTION to the states (the
last cnesus).
>Our income tax conflicts with the original constitution: it is a DIRECT
tax (the Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have declared it so) and
it has not been laid in PROPORTION to the states.
>The IRS {and that liberal biased authority on all things} (and the New
York Times) say our income tax, although DIRECT and UN-APPORTIONED, is
constitutional because the 16th amendment did away with the original
requirement that all DIRECT taxes must be in PROPORTION to the states.
>However, Bill Benson's research shows, conclusively, that the 16th (income
tax) amendment is a FRAUD.-it was fraudulently ratified.
>When Mr Benson took his charge of FRAUD to federal court, the court
declared that it was a political question for Congress to decide, (Editor's
note: since when if fraud a political question?)
>Even if the original constitution, or the constitution as amended by the
16th Amendment, authorized Congress to lay a DIRECT tax on all U. S.
Citizens, without APPORTIONMENT, Congress has not done so-Congress has yet
to pass a law that requires most Americans to file a tax return or to pay
income tax.
>The Current income tax law does NOT apply to most Americans. (Read More
Detailed Evidence at Our Website): Give Me Liberty! Home of We The People projects and information!
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.
Bill Benson's research report, "The Law That never Was" is based on
thousands of court-certified documents from state and federal archives. It
proves conclusively the 16th (income tax) amendment to the Constitution in
1913 was fraudulently ratified.
His report says, in effect, that every individual in America can legally
ignore requirements of the Internal Revenue Code because it is well settled
in American Jurisprudence that any law which is {in} conflict with the
Constitution is abrogated, i.e., it is VOID and can be IGNORED by the
people.
Mr Benson, a former Criminal Investigator for the Illinois Department of
Revenue, has NOT filed federal or state tax returns or paid any federal or
state tax on his income since 1986. {I know of two people in Crystal
River-one has not paid for over 5 years with no action by the IRS except for
the first year, where he refused to pay an illegal tax, and theother person
who took the IRS to Civil Court 14 years ago, and after spending $13,000,
representing himself in court, won against the IRS when they could not prove
that he had violated any law, and there was no law that required him to pay
a tax on income}.
THE STATUTORY ARGUMENT.
Un-refuted research by Larkin Rose and John Kotmair, say in effect, that
EVEN IF the Constitution authorized and income tax, the current income tax
laws do NOT APPLY AND DO NOT REQUIRE most U. S. Citizens to pay any taxes on
income.
Mr Rose has not filed federal or state income tax returns or paid income
taxes since 1996. Mr Kotmair has not filed federal or state income tax
returns or paid income taxes since 1973.
Q: Does the constitution prohibit a non-apportioned direct tax on the
People?
A: Yes! Here is what the original constitution says: "No capitation, or
other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or
enumeration herein before directed to be taken." See Article I, Section 9,
Clause 4.
Q: Is the individual income tax a direct tax? A: Yes. According to the
courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court as declared the tax to be a direct tax: "A proper
regard for its [the 16th Amendment's] 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 and apportionment according to
population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal." See
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
" Eisnery Macomber, (1920), 252 U.S. 189,206, 40 S.ct.189. Editor's
note: Wages and Salaries are property. See: Sims v U.S. (1959), 359 U.S.
108.
The Federal Appeals Courts have declared The Income Tax to Be a Direct Tax.
"The sixteenth amendment merely eliminates the requirement that the direct
tax be apportioned among the states...The sixteenth amendment was enacted
for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax." See Parker v.
Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 5th Cir. 1984).
The court held that an argument that the income tax was an excise tax was
frivolous on its face. The court declared: "The power thus long predates the
Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment
requirement". See Coleman v. Commission, 791 f.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986).
The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a
direct tax...", See United States v. Francisco, 614 f.2d 617, 619 (8th Cir.
1980).
"The sixteenth amendment remove any need to apportion income taxes among
the states that otherwise have been required by Article I, Section 9, Clause
4." See United States v. Lawson, 670 F,2d 923, 927 (10th Cir, 1982).
STATE COURTS HAVE DECLARED THE INCOME TAX TO BE A DIRECT TAX.
Editor's note: For a full discussion see: "Long after Brushaber vs. U. P.
Railroad and Stanton vs Baltic Mining, the courts have declared the income
tax to be a direct tax." This article can be found on our web site. Special
thanks to constitutional attorney Larry Becraft upon whose research our
article is based.
Q. Is the individual income tax imposed "in proportion to the census."
A. NO! It is not "in proportion to the census."
The individual income tax is not tied to the population, state-by-state.
Notwithstanding the constitutional prohibition found in Article I, Section
9, Clause 4, the income tax it is not apportioned among the states.
Congress does not reqire each state to tax their citizens to collect the
money the federal government says it needs, {that is so that they can keep
buying votes, spending money on bridges we don't need, donating 31 million
to The Washington Post for PR favors, and all the crap they waste money on}
over and above what it collects under the taxing authority granted to it
under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution (indirect taxes, excise,
tariffs, duties and imposts).
Q. How can there be a direct, un-apportioned individual income tax in
America if the original constitution prohibits it?
A. The government relies upon the validity of the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution as its authority to impose the current, direct, un-apportioned
individual income tax.
The 16th Amendment reads: "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 enumeration." 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. The IRS is on record
as saying; "The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution states that citizens
are required to file tax returns and pay taxes." IRS Publication 1918 (July
96, Cat No 22524B. No less an authority than the New York Times {Ha, Ha,
Ha, yeah sure} says the 16th Amendment is the government's authority to
impose tax directly on the working people of America. The New York Times
says: "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." The New York Times Almanac; 2001, The World's Most Comprehensive and
Authoritative Almanac {snicker, snicker, yawn} page 161.
While refusing to address the question of its fraudulent adoption, 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. For
instance 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 the authority
of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "See United
States of America vs Jerome David Pederson, (1985) Case No. CR-84-57-GF. In
the United States v. Lawson 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." See United
States vs Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 927 (10th Cir. 1982).
However, Bill Benson's research report documents that the 16th Amendment
was not ratified by the states and is a fraud. Bill Benson's 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. For a discussion of
Philander Knox and his motives for fraudulently declaring the 16th Amendment
ratified, see: "Who was Philander Knox? Is it credible that he could have
committed fraud?" Which can be found on our web site. {He did commit fraud
because he did it to curry favor with the Morgans, Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, Mellons, {the cartel that he created} who subsequently hired
him}..
PROOF THAT STATES DID NOT RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT.
In 1909, Congress passed the proposed 16th Amendment. It was sent to the
states for ratification by the state legislatures. There were 48 states.
Three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order
for it to be ratified.
Knox declared the 16th amendment ratified onFebruary 25, 1913, just a few
days before leaving office. He counted 38 states as having approved it.
>Kentucky: The Kentucky legislature rejected the amendment 33-9, but Knox
counted it as having passed 22-9.
There is more on the same page if you want to read....
Document 100.0.8.0 # 20 of 38 ...The 16th Amendment
was not ratified! The Income Tax is therefore illegal.
Note: As goes our nation in the push by the Socialist Council on Foreign
Relations, so goes the rest of the "free" world. The CFR through its
enforcement arm, the Communist United Nations, will eventually eliminate all
freedom in this world. Only you and I can stop it. Removing the funding
provided directly by the US Taxpayer (all of our income taxes go out of the
country) will be a huge blow to the Elitists who seek to be the world
dictator thru the UN.
{Philander Knox, Sec of State, 1909-1913, the Taft Administration,
proclaimed the 16th amendment to be ratified just a few days before he left
office in 1913 {sound familiar?}, to make way for the Wilson administration,
even though he knew it had not been legally ratified.
Philander Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, the Vanderbilts, the Mellons, and others. He had created for them the largest cartel in the
world, then was appointed, at their request, as the Attorney General in the
McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, where he refused to enforce the Sherman
anti-trust laws against the cartel he had just created.
The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen Nelson
Aldrich, father-in-law of John D Rockefeller Jr, and grandfather and
namesake of Nelson A Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox
had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.
Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted
Kentucky as having approved it.
Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it
meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by Congress, but
Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment. Minnesota did not submit
any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as
approving the amendment.}
The following is copied directly from the USA Today, 23 March 2001, Friday
Edition. Page 8A and The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, March
26-April 1. It is sponsored by: We The People Foundation For Constitutional
Education, Inc., Give Me Liberty! Home of We The People projects and information!, E-mail: acta@capital.net; Ph:
518-656-3578. Fax: 518-656-9724. This is an ongoing educational process
appearing in this "newspaper" and the Washington Times Weekly National
Edition. I will use the symbols { } to indicate notes, etc that I may
insert. The Symbols ( ) and [ ] are used in the original articles
and will be shown here.
QUOTE:
Q: Do you have to file a federal tax return or pay an income tax?
A: These Experts say "NO"! [There are then the pictures of Bill Benson,
Author: "The Law that Never Was"; Larken Rose, Author: "Taxable Income";
John Kotmair, Founder and Fiduciary, Save-a-Patriot Fellowship and Liberty
Works Radio Network]..
Read the Facts and Judge the truth for yourself.
>The original Constitution prohibits the Congress from laying a DIRECT
(income) tax on the People unless it is in PROPORTION to the states (the
last cnesus).
>Our income tax conflicts with the original constitution: it is a DIRECT
tax (the Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have declared it so) and
it has not been laid in PROPORTION to the states.
>The IRS {and that liberal biased authority on all things} (and the New
York Times) say our income tax, although DIRECT and UN-APPORTIONED, is
constitutional because the 16th amendment did away with the original
requirement that all DIRECT taxes must be in PROPORTION to the states.
>However, Bill Benson's research shows, conclusively, that the 16th (income
tax) amendment is a FRAUD.-it was fraudulently ratified.
>When Mr Benson took his charge of FRAUD to federal court, the court
declared that it was a political question for Congress to decide, (Editor's
note: since when if fraud a political question?)
>Even if the original constitution, or the constitution as amended by the
16th Amendment, authorized Congress to lay a DIRECT tax on all U. S.
Citizens, without APPORTIONMENT, Congress has not done so-Congress has yet
to pass a law that requires most Americans to file a tax return or to pay
income tax.
>The Current income tax law does NOT apply to most Americans. (Read More
Detailed Evidence at Our Website): Give Me Liberty! Home of We The People projects and information!
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.
Bill Benson's research report, "The Law That never Was" is based on
thousands of court-certified documents from state and federal archives. It
proves conclusively the 16th (income tax) amendment to the Constitution in
1913 was fraudulently ratified.
His report says, in effect, that every individual in America can legally
ignore requirements of the Internal Revenue Code because it is well settled
in American Jurisprudence that any law which is {in} conflict with the
Constitution is abrogated, i.e., it is VOID and can be IGNORED by the
people.
Mr Benson, a former Criminal Investigator for the Illinois Department of
Revenue, has NOT filed federal or state tax returns or paid any federal or
state tax on his income since 1986. {I know of two people in Crystal
River-one has not paid for over 5 years with no action by the IRS except for
the first year, where he refused to pay an illegal tax, and theother person
who took the IRS to Civil Court 14 years ago, and after spending $13,000,
representing himself in court, won against the IRS when they could not prove
that he had violated any law, and there was no law that required him to pay
a tax on income}.
THE STATUTORY ARGUMENT.
Un-refuted research by Larkin Rose and John Kotmair, say in effect, that
EVEN IF the Constitution authorized and income tax, the current income tax
laws do NOT APPLY AND DO NOT REQUIRE most U. S. Citizens to pay any taxes on
income.
Mr Rose has not filed federal or state income tax returns or paid income
taxes since 1996. Mr Kotmair has not filed federal or state income tax
returns or paid income taxes since 1973.
Q: Does the constitution prohibit a non-apportioned direct tax on the
People?
A: Yes! Here is what the original constitution says: "No capitation, or
other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or
enumeration herein before directed to be taken." See Article I, Section 9,
Clause 4.
Q: Is the individual income tax a direct tax? A: Yes. According to the
courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court as declared the tax to be a direct tax: "A proper
regard for its [the 16th Amendment's] 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 and apportionment according to
population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal." See
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
" Eisnery Macomber, (1920), 252 U.S. 189,206, 40 S.ct.189. Editor's
note: Wages and Salaries are property. See: Sims v U.S. (1959), 359 U.S.
108.
The Federal Appeals Courts have declared The Income Tax to Be a Direct Tax.
"The sixteenth amendment merely eliminates the requirement that the direct
tax be apportioned among the states...The sixteenth amendment was enacted
for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax." See Parker v.
Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 5th Cir. 1984).
The court held that an argument that the income tax was an excise tax was
frivolous on its face. The court declared: "The power thus long predates the
Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment
requirement". See Coleman v. Commission, 791 f.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986).
The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a
direct tax...", See United States v. Francisco, 614 f.2d 617, 619 (8th Cir.
1980).
"The sixteenth amendment remove any need to apportion income taxes among
the states that otherwise have been required by Article I, Section 9, Clause
4." See United States v. Lawson, 670 F,2d 923, 927 (10th Cir, 1982).
STATE COURTS HAVE DECLARED THE INCOME TAX TO BE A DIRECT TAX.
Editor's note: For a full discussion see: "Long after Brushaber vs. U. P.
Railroad and Stanton vs Baltic Mining, the courts have declared the income
tax to be a direct tax." This article can be found on our web site. Special
thanks to constitutional attorney Larry Becraft upon whose research our
article is based.
Q. Is the individual income tax imposed "in proportion to the census."
A. NO! It is not "in proportion to the census."
The individual income tax is not tied to the population, state-by-state.
Notwithstanding the constitutional prohibition found in Article I, Section
9, Clause 4, the income tax it is not apportioned among the states.
Congress does not reqire each state to tax their citizens to collect the
money the federal government says it needs, {that is so that they can keep
buying votes, spending money on bridges we don't need, donating 31 million
to The Washington Post for PR favors, and all the crap they waste money on}
over and above what it collects under the taxing authority granted to it
under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution (indirect taxes, excise,
tariffs, duties and imposts).
Q. How can there be a direct, un-apportioned individual income tax in
America if the original constitution prohibits it?
A. The government relies upon the validity of the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution as its authority to impose the current, direct, un-apportioned
individual income tax.
The 16th Amendment reads: "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 enumeration." 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. The IRS is on record
as saying; "The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution states that citizens
are required to file tax returns and pay taxes." IRS Publication 1918 (July
96, Cat No 22524B. No less an authority than the New York Times {Ha, Ha,
Ha, yeah sure} says the 16th Amendment is the government's authority to
impose tax directly on the working people of America. The New York Times
says: "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." The New York Times Almanac; 2001, The World's Most Comprehensive and
Authoritative Almanac {snicker, snicker, yawn} page 161.
While refusing to address the question of its fraudulent adoption, 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. For
instance 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 the authority
of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "See United
States of America vs Jerome David Pederson, (1985) Case No. CR-84-57-GF. In
the United States v. Lawson 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." See United
States vs Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 927 (10th Cir. 1982).
However, Bill Benson's research report documents that the 16th Amendment
was not ratified by the states and is a fraud. Bill Benson's 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. For a discussion of
Philander Knox and his motives for fraudulently declaring the 16th Amendment
ratified, see: "Who was Philander Knox? Is it credible that he could have
committed fraud?" Which can be found on our web site. {He did commit fraud
because he did it to curry favor with the Morgans, Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, Mellons, {the cartel that he created} who subsequently hired
him}..
PROOF THAT STATES DID NOT RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT.
In 1909, Congress passed the proposed 16th Amendment. It was sent to the
states for ratification by the state legislatures. There were 48 states.
Three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order
for it to be ratified.
Knox declared the 16th amendment ratified onFebruary 25, 1913, just a few
days before leaving office. He counted 38 states as having approved it.
>Kentucky: The Kentucky legislature rejected the amendment 33-9, but Knox
counted it as having passed 22-9.
There is more on the same page if you want to read....
I have an uncle who went through the same deal as pjcalla noted about 15 years ago. Never saw any jail time. Just a lot of threats from the IRS. Said the same thing. Taxes are voluntary and he was not going to support a corrupt government. I recall him saying that by signing your w-4 for an employer volunteers you to participate. Not sure whether or not he is still doing this or not. He had a hard time keeping employment because employers were nervous about him being "different". Plus, he may of got tired of everyone (taxpayers) telling him to stay off their roads and to keep his kids out of their schools. 
Last edited:
I hate to throw myself into this conversation, but would like to help if I can.
I have several friends who have resigned from SS, have opted out of the federal income tax system, and are no longer trusts of local or federal government.
I have not looked too deeply into anything they are doing b/c, unfortunately I have close ties to the IRS.
However, the source of information that they have staked their freedom on is Family Guardian: Protecting individuals and families
There is a lot of good reading there and they provide all forms/affidavits free of charge.
I have several friends who have resigned from SS, have opted out of the federal income tax system, and are no longer trusts of local or federal government.
I have not looked too deeply into anything they are doing b/c, unfortunately I have close ties to the IRS.
However, the source of information that they have staked their freedom on is Family Guardian: Protecting individuals and families
There is a lot of good reading there and they provide all forms/affidavits free of charge.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- mkgr22
- Dbusby2009
- JimH
- tsm
- Cavman
- duanewade
- snapping turtle
- Scott58
- farva118
- 257robertsimp
- Jarvitron
- Tryin'
- pharmboy
- Cameramonkey
- Lwright
- bwframe
- joe138
- JayCo
- NyleRN
- 510picker
- bkflyer
- Firehawk
- MrSmitty
- harvey4
- whippo
- Slow Hand
- Flash-hider
- Toole
- rkwhyte2
- flightsimmer
- jwamplerusa
- brchixwing
- DoggyDaddy
- HoosierHunter07
- sliptap
- shawnfox12
- SolidDragon74
- chezuki
- SouthernStar25
- billybob44
- AlienRayGun
- wildcatfan.62
- SomeOld Guy
- Ethanhoosier1
- tv1217
- Slade
- Principal Skinr
- Sgt7330
- snorko
- duff