Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 154
  1. #101
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    3.Pe ioners advance the theory that the Internal Revenue Code is not law because the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. In support of this theory they cite a book en led "The Law That Never Was", by Bill Benson and Martin Beckman, which they say was published in 1985. Pe ioners must have noticed that in the intervening 30 years, income tax returns have continued to be required and filed, and income taxes have continued to be paid by taxpayers, collected by the IRS, and enforced by the courts. In fact, litigation involving Mr. Benson himself has shown his theory to be without merit.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated: Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal. United States v. Benson,941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991) ("In Thomas, we specifically examined the arguments made in The Law That Never Was, and concluded that 'Benson...did not discover anything.' " (quoting United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253 ( 7th Cir. 1986)))." We have repeatedly rejected the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified. One would think this repeated rejection of Benson's Sixteenth Amendment argument would put the matter to rest." Benson, 941 F.2d at 607(citation somitted).


    Excerpt from another court case invoking Benson.
    https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetO...09618&Todays=Y

  2. #102
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    3.Pe ioners advance the theory that the Internal Revenue Code is not law because the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. In support of this theory they cite a book en led "The Law That Never Was", by Bill Benson and Martin Beckman, which they say was published in 1985. Pe ioners must have noticed that in the intervening 30 years, income tax returns have continued to be required and filed, and income taxes have continued to be paid by taxpayers, collected by the IRS, and enforced by the courts. In fact, litigation involving Mr. Benson himself has shown his theory to be without merit.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated: Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal. United States v. Benson,941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991) ("In Thomas, we specifically examined the arguments made in The Law That Never Was, and concluded that 'Benson...did not discover anything.' " (quoting United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253 ( 7th Cir. 1986)))." We have repeatedly rejected the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified. One would think this repeated rejection of Benson's Sixteenth Amendment argument would put the matter to rest." Benson, 941 F.2d at 607(citation somitted).


    Excerpt from another court case invoking Benson.
    https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetO...09618&Todays=Y
    So, a blanket denial. That points towards a cover-up.

    There's a reason this didn't go to SCOTUS.

  3. #103
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Here's the United States vs Thomas decision:

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=1&oi=scholarr

  4. #104
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Looks interesting enough at a glance. You'll have to use your words though.


    You just believed your guy without reading anything.

  5. #105
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    So, a blanket denial. That points towards a cover-up.
    moar conspacies

  6. #106
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    So, a blanket denial. That points towards a cover-up.

    There's a reason this didn't go to SCOTUS.
    Not really. It's plan as a day in the Thomas decision:

    1. 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 cons ution. 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 do ents 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 subs uted "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 do ent effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative do ent is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that do ent as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to cons utional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (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, 462-63 & n. 6 (7th Cir.1986), we relied on Leser, as well as on 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's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be non justiciable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's 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's decision is now beyond review.

    ---

    It didn't reach the SCOTUS because it was moot, the Supreme Court itself set the "enrolled bill rule" standard.

  7. #107
    4-25-20 Will Hunting's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    22,468
    is this supposed to be dispositive evidence that the 16th amendment is a sham?

  8. #108
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    others made similar blunders.
    Mmmhmm.

  9. #109
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    is this supposed to be dispositive evidence that the 16th amendment is a sham?
    If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
    The state cons ution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Cons ution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state cons ution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state cons utional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
    Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state cons utions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
    Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their cons utions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
    When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the do ents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal do ent, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a cons utional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
    These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper do entation? They never did.
    Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose cons utions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.
    The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own cons ution, as noted above).
    https://www.givemeliberty.org/featur...otratified.htm

  10. #110
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    If we subtract all the states that ratified the amendment, the amendment isn't ratified!

  11. #111
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    Chirp!

  12. #112
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    It's safe to say your conspiracy theory has been debunked.

  13. #113
    4-25-20 Will Hunting's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    22,468
    So do you pay taxes? If you actually believed any of this bull then theoretically you wouldn’t pay any federal income tax

  14. #114
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    So do you pay taxes? If you actually believed any of this bull then theoretically you wouldn’t pay any federal income tax
    Not necessarily. The govt. has virtually infinite resources. I don't.

  15. #115
    4-25-20 Will Hunting's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    22,468
    Not necessarily. The govt. has virtually infinite resources. I don't.
    so you pay taxes even though you think it’s uncons utional? That’s like staying married to a woman you think is cheating on you.

    getting cucked by the IRS

  16. #116
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    so you pay taxes even though you think it’s uncons utional? That’s like staying married to a woman you think is cheating on you.

    getting cucked by the IRS
    You know it's a sham. It's not going to stop you from complying.

  17. #117
    4-25-20 Will Hunting's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    22,468
    You know it's a sham. It's not going to stop you from complying.
    what? If I actually thought I had a valid legal argument to avoid paying taxes, I wouldn’t pay them. Neither would the billionaires who actually have resources at their disposal to fight the federal government if they wanted to.

  18. #118
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    what? If I actually thought I had a valid legal argument to avoid paying taxes, I wouldn’t pay them. Neither would the billionaires who actually have resources at their disposal to fight the federal government if they wanted to.
    Valid is that the amendment wasn't properly ratified. You just know the government doesn't give two s and you accept that and capitulate. It is what it is.

  19. #119
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Valid is that the amendment wasn't properly ratified. You just know the government doesn't give two s and you accept that and capitulate. It is what it is.
    You're the one claiming the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified AND paying income taxes... who's capitulating here?

  20. #120
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    You're the one claiming the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified AND paying income taxes... who's capitulating here?
    I am capitulating. I don't need to be a voiceless martyr and spend twenty years in the fed pen like others have done.

    You're capitulating, too. It is what it is.

  21. #121
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    I am capitulating. I don't need to be a voiceless martyr and spend twenty years in the fed pen like others have done.

    You're capitulating, too. It is what it is.
    I don't claim the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified. I side with the courts, who has long established it's been legally ratified. I'm merely following the law.

    Law and order!

  22. #122
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    I don't claim the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified.
    Which shows how easy you'll capitulate.

  23. #123
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Which shows how easy you'll capitulate.
    This is fundamentally a country of laws, and we all accept that and live by it, whether we like the laws or not. We also understand the judiciary has final word on these matters, unless Congress decides to change the laws. That's not 'capitulating', that's simply accepting reality.

    Again, if you believe you're right, don't be a coward, stand up for it. You could even sue while still paying your taxes. Until a court endorses your theory, you're simply wrong.

  24. #124
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    This is fundamentally a country of laws, and we all accept that and live by it, whether we like the laws or not. We also understand the judiciary has final word on these matters, unless Congress decides to change the laws. That's not 'capitulating', that's simply accepting reality.

    Again, if you believe you're right, don't be a coward, stand up for it. You could even sue while still paying your taxes. Until a court endorses your theory, you're simply wrong.
    It's fundamentally a incorporated police state. We all subjected whether we like it or not. We also understand that the autocrats at the behest of the oligarchs have the final word on these matters unless the people revolt (which they won't), that's accepting true reality.

    Again, you don't believe you're right and you are a coward who laid down long ago. You know the recourse isn't there. You pretend it is. You're simply wrong.

  25. #125
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    lol @ "true reality" (and it's close cousin, "alternate facts")

    your frustration of not living in your imaginary world is duly noted. in the meantime, go outside and figure out what real life looks like, you know, the one you have to actually live.

    that is true, the rest is in your head.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •