Now don't get me wrong that they won't try to prosecute on laws that don't exist!BUT WE CAN WIN AND PEOPLE HAVE! even though they have no right! But We as people NEED TO STAND TALL and SHEEPLE need to stop taking it up the arse
The Premise
The federal government rests its authority to collect income tax on the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the federal income tax amendment—which was allegedly ratified in 1913.
"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."
—The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
After an extensive year-long nationwide research project, William J. Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states and that nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification.
It was a shocking revelation; it reached deep to the core of our American system of government.
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.
In 1984 Bill 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. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key.
This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.
These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:
California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.
Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
Bill Benson Bill would like to thank those who've contributed or shown support in the fight against fraudulent taxation. Click here to help.
When his project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the states do not possess.
Since thirty-six states were needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify was fatal to the Amendment. 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 two states which successfully ratified.
it was never ratified and still lets say for shits and giggles it was ratified still only "
CONGRESS HAS THE POWER " the IRS ain't Congress! nor has been giving any power by Congress or Directed by Congress WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE
For the sake of argument, let's say the Sixteenth Amendment was actually ratified. What have the courts said on its meaning? Jeff Dickstein, a constitutional attorney with decades of experience in the federal court rooms and expert on this issue, can tell you:
"In 1894 Congress passed an income tax act very similar to the current income tax law. That law was challenged on the basis that a tax on income is a direct tax, the United States Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned, and the act passed by Congress was not apportioned. The United States Supreme Court agreed and held the income tax act was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)." Ah, but what about Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), both U.S. Supreme Court cases? Jeff gives you a complete overview here and unless one is willing to take the time to research this issue, they will continue to believe a lie. This comprehensive and easy to understand explanation of what the courts have said is crucial. The bottom line as Jeff says is this:
"Whether you agree with Brushaber that the tax is an excise tax that doesn't have to be apportioned, or agree with Eisner that the tax is a direct tax that doesn't have to be apportioned, without the 16th Amendment, the law reverts back to Pollock. The serious student will find my book, Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, an in depth study of the history of the income tax, with two chapters devoted to the issue of direct and indirect taxes, and an extensive analysis of the Pollock and Brushaber cases."
As the courts have been divided on this law and can't make up their mind, how can any American be charged and convicted for violating this so called law? It's called 'uncertainty of the law' and this is what constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, with about 30 years experience in federal court rooms has to say:
"Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes, direct and indirect. Via Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, of the Constitution, indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) must be uniformly imposed throughout the country. Direct taxes are required via Art. 1, §2, cl. 3, and Art. 1, §9, cl. 4, to be imposed pursuant to the regulation of apportionment. These tax categories are mutually exclusive and any given tax must squarely fit within one category or the other. To which constitutional category does the federal income tax belong? Is it a direct tax, or is it an indirect tax? Do American courts speak with unanimity about this simple question of what is the nature of this tax?
here is fun FACT COURT CASES of them LOSING because they don't have it!
1993, Lloyd Long was charged with willful failure to file and he was acquitted by a jury of his peers. Larry Becraft was his attorney. State of Tennessee.
2007: Tommy Cryer, attorney at law; State of Louisiana. Charged with two counts of willful failure to file. Larry Becraft was his attorney. A jury unanimously found him not guilty.
2003: Vernie Kuglin, a former FED-EX pilot was acquitted on six counts of tax evasion. Her attorneys were Larry Becraft and Bob Bernhoft. State of Tennessee.2005: Joseph Banister, former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent was charged as follows: Alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371- Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. § 287 - False Claims Against United States (Two counts); 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) - Filing False Tax Returns; 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) - Aiding and Assisting the Filing of False Tax Returns (Three Counts); 26 U.S.C. § 7202 - Willful Failure to Withhold and Pay Taxes (10 Counts). The indictment contains several bald faced lies that I personally know to be false. The feds wanted Joe bad, but a jury of 12 acquitted him on all charges. His legal team was Jeff Dickstein and Bob Bernhoft. State of California. IRS Loses: DoJ and IRS fraud
In Jerry Dixon v. CIR, F.3d (9th Cir. 2003), the court found that DoJ and IRS committed fraud on the court in a tax case.
IRS Loses: Unrecorded deed beats IRSA 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 preservedThe 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: Under-reporting 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 under-reported 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.
