October 6, 2005 – In 1984, William J. Benson, a former security and fraud investigator for the Criminal Investigation Division of the Illinois Department of Revenue, traveled to the Capitols of the forty-eight (48) States that constituted the United States of America during the year 1913.

 

Benson obtained certified copies of the legislative journals in each of these forty-eight (48) states concerning the ratification of the so-called 16^th Amendment, often referred to as the income tax amendment.  He also obtained certified copies of records related to the ratification of the 16^th Amendment maintained in the National Achieves, Washington DC.

 

All told, Benson has assembled approximately seventeen thousand certified and notarized documents related to the ratification of the 16^th Amendment.  As a direct result of his research, Benson has concluded that the so-called 16^th Amendment was never actually ratified.  If his conclusions are accurate, no law, code, statute, or policy associated with the collection or payment of a federal income tax is legitimate. 

 

In 1985, Benson, being utterly convinced of the accuracy of his conclusion that paying federal income tax is unconstitutional, co-authored with M.J. “Red” Beckman, The Law That Never Was.  In 1986, he authored Volume Two with the same title.  Over the course of twenty years, from 1985 to 2005, Benson has been seeking an admission from the federal government, from anybody in the federal government, whether a congressman, senator, or federal judge to study his research and prove him wrong.  If wrong, he’d like the government to show him his error. However, if he is correct, then the expectation is an immediate, public abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and the collapse of the federal income-taxing scheme. 

 

In 2005, twenty-one years after he started on his quest for the truth, rather than giving Benson’s conclusion a forthright consideration, the federal government has instead turned to the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and Judge Filip to prohibit Benson from making his claim that the so-called 16^th Amendment is a fraud.  The government has claimed in court that Benson’s claims are false, but to date, no elected official, federal agency, or court has attempted to prove Benson is wrong. 

 

In defense of his conclusion, Benson plans to argue that the government of the United States of America cannot seek a court order to prohibit him from making his claim regarding the 16^th Amendment unless the government is willing to prove that his claim is false.  Unfortunately, in 2005 the federal government does what it wants, when it wants, to whomever it wants without regard for the rule of law.  Federal judges have consistently proved unreliable in respect to balanced power and protecting the people from overzealous government run rampant.  Benson, sick and late in life, might simply die from complications before the foreign government perpetrating a fraud in Washington DC ever faces the facts regarding the 16^th Amendment. 

 

Does Benson have proof that the proposed 16^th Amendment was not ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures of the forty-eight (48) states as required by Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America?  Based on the legal brief filed on his behalf by Attorney Jeffrey A. Dickstein, Law Offices of Robert G. Bernhoft, it appears as though Benson’s claims are indeed factually and easily substantiated by certified, historical documentation. 

 

At the core of Benson’s claim that the 16^th Amendment is bogus is a firmly established legal principle called bicameralism.  In layman terms, bicameralism, when applied to creating laws, requires that any bill that passes both in the House of Representatives and Senate, either at the state or federal level, requires that the bills passed by the house and senate have the exact same language becoming law.  There cannot be a single deviation; not one letter, word, or punctuation mark can there be that is different from the version being considered in the other side of the statehouse or U.S. Congress.  Settled law dictates that for a bill to become law, the house version and senate version must mirror each other before it goes to the governor or president to be signed into law.  If the house version adds a coma, or if the senate version adds an “a”, then neither has agreed with the other and until such time that the house and senate come into absolute agreement, the bill cannot legally become a law. 

 

The principle of bicameralism also applies to constitutional amendments.  When a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America originates in Washington DC, identical versions of the proposal are sent to the states for ratification.  If three-fourths of the states ratify the proposed amendment, without any amending whatsoever by the state legislators, then the proposed constitutional amendment is legally ratified.  But if more than one-forth of the states returns the proposed amendment to the federal government with any amendment to the amendment whatsoever, then the proposed amendment has not been ratified.  Such emphasis on mirroring language and punctuation is paramount because in matters of law, every single word no manner how simple, and every punctuation mark, regardless of how ordinary, has exact and purposeful meaning.  In a court of law, an “a” means something and so does “it”.

 

According to Benson’s research here’s what happened:

 

Kentucky, Kansas, Tennessee, and Vermont failed to vote for ratification.  Oklahoma, Missouri, Washington, South Dakota, Arkansas, Idaho, California, and Maryland voted on altered versions of the proposed amendment, which consequently conflicted with the principles of bicameralism.   For example:

 

The proposed amendment read - 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.  Notice the intentional departures from the proposed amendment text that follow. 

 

Oklahoma – The Senate of the State of Oklahoma intentionally amended the proposed 16^th Amendment to read, “The Congress shall have power to lay on collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and from any census or enumeration.”

 

Missouri – replaced the word “lay” with “levy”

 

Washington – replaced the word “incomes” with “income”

 

South Dakota – Both the House and Senate voted to ratify a joint resolution that purposely left out the initial word “The”

 

Arkansas - Both the House and Senate voted to ratify a joint resolution that purposely left out the word “The”

 

Idaho – Both the House and Senate voted to ratify a joint resolution that changed the word “or” to the word “of” before the word “enumeration”

 

California - Both the House and Senate voted to ratify a joint resolution that left out the initial word “The” and the word “or” before the word “enumeration”

 

Maryland - Both the House and Senate voted to ratify a joint resolution that left out the word “and” before the word “without”

 

Applying the principles of bicameralism and the rule of law, the first four states mentioned above voted not to ratify, and the following eight states must also be eliminated from any tally aimed at reaching the three-fourth requirement because of changes made in the proposed amendment text. 

 

As such, there remain thirty-six states, which if properly ratified according to state constitutions and the Constitution of the United States, satisfies the three-fourth requirement as articulated in Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America. 

 

According to Benson, it is within the confines of state constitutions that the legitimate ratification of the proposed 16^th Amendment by the remaining thirty-six states quickly unravels.  In fact, the evidence that follows proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the 16^th Amendment is unlawfully enacted and therefore unlawful. 

 

For example:

 

Mississippi – On March 27, 1910, the House made it clear that they regarded H.J.R. No. 14 the same as a “bill”. Ms. Const. Art IV, § 59 requires bills to be read a first and second time on two different days, and that they be read in full before the final vote on its passage. 

 

The House did not read H.J.R. No. 14 in full prior to the final vote.

 

Texas – Tx. Const. Art. III, § 38 requires the presiding officer of each house to sign, in the presence of each house over which he presides, all joint resolutions, after their titles have been publicly read before signing, and the facts of signing shall be entered on the journals. 

 

There is no record that the title was publicly read in the Senate.

 

Montana – Mt. Const. Art. V, § 27 requires the presiding officer of each house to sign, in the presence of each house over which he presides, all joint resolutions, after their titles have been publicly read, and the facts of signing shall be entered on the journals. 

 

There is no record that the title was publicly read in the Senate.

 

North Carolina – N.C. Const. Art II, § 14 provided that no law shall be passed to impose any tax upon the people of the State unless the bill for that purpose has been read three several times in each house, on three different days, and unless the yeas and nays on the second and third readings of the bill shall have been entered on the journal.  House Rule 53 provides that all resolutions of a public nature shall be treated in all respects in a similar manner as public bills. 

 

The Senate read the resolution the third time the same day as the second reading, and did not record the yeas and nays of this vote in its journal.

 

Colorado – In Colorado, resolutions were to be treated by the Legislature the same as bills.  Senate Rule XXV, section 4 requires the final question upon the second reading of every joint resolution originating in the Senate to be whether it shall be engrossed and read a third time.  Co. Const. Art. V, § 22 requires every bill to be read at length, on three different days, in each House. 

 

The Senate failed to read S.C.R. No. 3 the second and third time, and thereby also violated Senate Rule XXV, section 4. 

 

Co. Const. Art. V, § 26 requires the presiding officer of each house to sign, in the presence of each house over which he presides, all joint resolutions after their titles have been publicly read, immediately before signing, and the facts of signing shall be entered on the journals. 

 

Neither House publicly read the title of S.C.R. No. 3 immediately before signing. 

 

Undoubtedly, the federal government is not going to willfully correct itself and publicly acknowledge that the 16^th Amendment is a fraud.  Politicians, lawyers, accountants, non-profit organizations, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the World Bank all require the federal income tax to continue their operations or further their socialistic agendas.  It is the future taxable wages received for our labor that the federal government now uses as collateral to borrow money to do things our nation cannot afford to do, with money it does not have.  Because of the foreign Federal Reserve banking cartel and its ability to influence the U.S. Congress to borrow more at the taxpayer’s expense, our national debt is now approximately 8 trillion dollars and climbing. 

 

It is time for the people to seize the day.  Right here, right now is the moment in our history for the states to prohibit the federal income tax from being withheld from its workers paychecks.  Now is the time, for state legislators to banish all IRS agents and offices from their states.  Now is the time for the states to protect their business owners from federal agents who attempt to arrest the owners for not withholding federal income tax from their employees’ paychecks.  Now is the time for the Governors of these fifty (50) states to unite and tell the federal government no more federal income tax.  Now is the moment for state legislators to pass laws prohibiting the filing of federal income tax returns by the residents of their state.  Carpe diem.

TIS ONLY IN THEIR DREAMS THAT MEN TRULY BE FREE,
'TWAS ALWAYS THUS, AND ALWAYS THUS WILL BE.

                                                                                                     KEATING