First time ever! Federal Judge Opines that 16th Amendment (forming IRS) was Never Properly Ratified
No legal football has been tossed around more than the 16th Amendment fraud. In 1984, when Red Beckman and the Montana Historians had finished funding Bill Benson’s 48 visits to the state capitals (in the continental United States applicable to the case in 1913) to secure the certified copies of the proof that not only had the ratification process of the 16th fallen shockingly short by not gaining approval from three-quarters of the states, the evidence showed that almost none of the states had complied to the letter of the law; with only four of them having even landed on the positive side of “maybe.”
Beckman and Benson then published this shocking proof in a coffee table hardcover entitled The Law That Never Was, and the establishment was caught red-handed, with its pants down, its hand in the cookie jar, without a window of escape and any other cliché of obvious guilt we choose. The rascals were caught. Period.
Now, what would be the ramifications nearly three quarters of a century later? Senator Orrin Hatch and Washington DC attorney Warren S. Richardson had a plan in 1985, according to Richardson. It wasn’t legal, but it was not atypical either. Richardson called Bill Benson, at his home in South Holland, Illinois while respected truth-seeking, government-fighting Indiana Pastor Greg Dixon was visiting and on the extension phone. Pastor Dixon later recorded the words of Richardson and replies by Benson in a sworn affidavit.*
Richardson said he was acting in behalf of Sen. Orrin Hatch and was prepared to make Benson a multi-millionaire. “Bill,” Richardson said, “[in addition to much more] . . . all you need do is agree to not speak to anyone again about the 16th Amendment, no more radio or television, and lastly, we would want all 17,000 notarized and certified documents that you have in your possession.” To his credit, Benson refused.* Fifteen years later, Richardson wrote a long letter of commendation to Bill Benson for the great job he had done with his research and confirming that he had been legally correct. None of the bribe attempt of 1985 was mentioned.*
Nothing has ever become of the ratification fraud (except to expose the further likelihood of the same procedure having happened with others such as the 14th and 17th). The courts claimed it was a legislative issue, but the shifty politicos wouldn’t touch it without a court decision; and there it has been kicked back and forth for three decades. Recently, a new revelation has emerged that will have no lasting effect either. A transcript from a 2003 trial in North Carolina shows that those on the bench have long known of the fraud of the 16th Amendment but continued to avoid the issue. Lt. Col. (ret.) Donald Sullivan began to protest the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to send troop to foreign lands without a formal Congressional declaration of war long before the Obama issue came along. In 1991, when King George the 41st began his Gulf War, Sullivan immediately told his superiors that he would not be going until Congress declared war. Because the so-called “war” was so brief, Sullivan was never prosecuted, but he declares to this day that the stand was “probably why I never made Bird Colonel.”
Yup, probably so. But in 2003, Sullivan, already retired, challenged again (because of the undeclared war on Iraq) but from a different legal angle. This time, without even trying, he stumbled into a statement from a judge that Beckman, Benson et. al had been seeking for twenty years. Sullivan reckons that the quick “victory” declaration in Iraq by Lil’ George the 43rd is what gave the judge the easy out of a “moot” dismissal.
We agree. It was another easy way to avoid the issue, and avoidance is what the federal judiciary is always seeking. While the 16th Amendment issue continues to be debated about whether or not the amendment does or does not govern the actual jurisdiction and unlawful behavior of the Internal Revenue Service robots, here we have a confession from no less than a sitting federal judge in North Carolina that they have known for a long time who was legally right.
*See Pat Shannan’s books here. His 2004 publication Maybe the People Have the Answers includes the incriminating, notarized copies of these affidavits by Pastor Dixon and letters by Warren Richardson.
Mr. Sullivan sent us this email with some interesting excerpts off the court record:
A friend sent me this article yesterday off a IRS Truth blog. I found it very interesting. Hope you do, too. It was my case, and not only did the judge deny my TRO, he also dismissed the suit on April 15, 2003, six days after Lord Bush announced his “Mission Accomplished” on the ninth. Of course, that war is still not over; and we will suffer the afterbirth from it for years to come. Oh, why was it dismissed? Because it was moot. I consider the court’s comments about going for a “rebate” to be a bit spurious, since the Constitution doesn’t allow federal judges to be taxed anyway. I don’t know why they let the IRS get away with it. It’s probably all to do with the judicial conspiracy to keep us all enslaved by the income tax.
DS
Sullivan v USA and the 16th Amendment
Posted by: BobMcNeil in IRS
There are an untold number of Americans who are convinced that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was never properly ratified and, as a result, the Federal income tax is unconstitutional. Bill Benson is one of the proponents of that argument and made his case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on October 28, 2008. I wrote about that in my November 4, 2008 blog entitled USA v William J. Benson.
The evidence of the truth of his argument was struck from the record as “irrelevant and immaterial.” His appeal before the 7th Circuit raises the question of whether American citizens will continue to be allowed to prove their innocence in the courts of this country. Now, it is one thing for an everyday American citizen to claim that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, but, what if a Federal judge makes the same claim during the course of a trial? This transpired in Sullivan v USA (03-CV-39), heard before Judge James C. Fox in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 21, 2003. In that case, Lt. Colonel Donald Sullivan filed a “Motion For Temporary Restraining Order” to stop the Iraq War until Congress met and issued a formal declaration of war to the President, in accordance with Article I Section 8(11) of the Constitution, which states: “Congress shall have power… to declare war…..”.
The basis of Colonel Sullivan’s argument before the court was this: Throughout its history, the United States has engaged in numerous military conflicts without a Constitutionally mandated declaration of war issued by Congress, and the fact that this has occurred so many times doesn’t make it legal. After hearing Colonel Sullivan’s and the Government’s, arguments Judge Fox denied Colonel Sullivan’s motion, and made the following statements in his rebuttal:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Court Transcript at Page 20, Lines 16-23:
“THE COURT: well, I think it has occurred over…. I don’t disagree with everything that you say. I think that it has occurred over a long period of time, and consequently, there is less hesitancy on the executive branch to preserve anything. It’s just like kids who break a rule the first 200 times and after awhile they don’t care; they don’t acknowledge that the rule exists. I don’t say that your argument is without merit. I really don’t.”
Further, at page 22, lines 24-25 and page 23, lines 1-22:
“THE COURT: I will say I think, you know, colonel, i have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I’m correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.
Mr. Sullivan: true statement.
THE COURT: And nonetheless, I think it’s fair to say that it is part of the constitution of the united states, and i don’t think any court would ever – would set it aside. Well, I’ve seen that– I’ve seen somewhere a treatise on that, and i think it was — I think I’m correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred.
Mr. Sullivan: correct, sir.
THE COURT: Yet nonetheless, I’m sure no court’s going to say that the 16th amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason, although I wouldn’t mind filing for a rebate myself.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s a pretty startling admission by a Federal judge and, in my mind, lends a great deal of credibility to those who believe the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.
But, I’ll let you judge for yourself.