The Illegal 16th Amendment

Now You Know The Rest Of The Story

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.

At this time during the Taft administration, Philander Knox served as the Secretary of State from 1909 to 1913. Knox was for many years the primary attorney for the richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and the Vanderbilt's. Just a few days before he left office in 1913, to make way for the Wilson administration, Knox proclaimed the 16^th Amendment to be ratified, even though he knew it had not been legally ratified. The 16^th Amendment was not ratified as Knox had fraudulently proclaimed.

Ratified or not, the United States Supreme Court has ruled:

"...[the 16^th Amendment] conferred no new power of taxation...[and]...prohibited the...power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...".

– United States Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining (1916)

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.

The federal government claimed Kentucky was the second state to ratify the 16^th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. Apparently, the Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment. Federal officials, who had possession of documents showing this rejection, nevertheless claimed Kentucky had ratified the amendment.

In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the language of the 16^th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning. The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16^th Amendment. And whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. Several states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power that these states did not possess.

Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not stop Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.

In February 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment – including Kentucky, California, and Oklahoma. But since Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35, which Knox said included Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. Then a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, plus Minnesota sent in nothing. That would only leave 33 states, less the states that took it upon themselves to change the amendment. In the final analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16^th Amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted. Knox told a boldface lie. Thus, Knox had created his clients’ the largest cartel in the world. Nevertheless, the people were not buying into the tax scheme, ever so cognizant that a 1894 income-tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895.

During World War I, the secretary of the Treasury explicitly suggested use of "widespread propaganda" to convince the public to forgo their "needless pleasures". The Treasury Department implemented what it called a "campaign of education" regarding the income tax. Its "essential features" included government-supplied news stories and editorials as well as encouragement of special cartoons and films. Perhaps the most intriguing feature was its use of the clergy. The commissioner of Internal Revenue reported that "Thousands of clergymen, at the suggestion of the Bureau, made taxation the subject of at least one sermon." As a result of the "patriotic response" aroused "dissatisfaction and complaint over the burden imposed by taxation were minimized." Government officials commented that "the groundwork was laid for securing in ensuing years of prompt and regular response to revenue demands." To perpetuate its success, the Bureau of Internal Revenue advocated "the most intensive cultivation of intelligent public opinion" (U.S. Treasury Department 1919: 964-65, 974).

The citizens of America still didn’t buy into the scheme of income tax allowing politicians to coerce them out of their hard earned money. But the greedy politicians would not give up. To increase public awareness and acceptance of the income tax, the government used volunteer public speakers to persuade the American people that paying taxes was their patriotic duty to support the war effort. One-third of the cost of World War I was paid for by income taxes. Additional funds needed for the war effort were provided through war bonds, liberty loans and other government borrowing.

At the beginning of World War II, in 1939 about 15 % of the people paid income tax. That’s all! The government called on Walt Disney to produce a cartoon to support the war effort. Disney agreed and made a cartoon with Donald Duck. The cartoon urged the average American to save, not spend, their money...but to pay income tax to support the war. (Cartoon): You don’t wanna forget our fighting men, do you laddy? Donald: "No, Sir!!!" Then you’ll have to meet your tax payments... Donald also informed, "that it is ‘your privilege, not just your duty, but your privilege to help your government by paying your tax and paying it promptly’." More than 32 million people saw the film in the first few months of 1942, and a Gallup poll reported that "37 percent felt the film had affected their willingness to pay taxes." Without doubt, such government propaganda manipulated political information in ways that raised the expected marginal cost of income tax resistance. Revenues increased dramatically. In 1941 the government collected $7.4 billion in taxes. By 1945, the tax total had increased to $43 billion. At the end of the war the government had 80% of American families paying income tax. The willingness to pay income taxes and to buy more bonds demonstrated the deep involvement of the civilians caring and support to the military. Politicians had at last found the key to the unyielding pocket books of America. As the president and Congress imposed ever higher income taxes, tax payment was wrapped in patriotism and remains so today: the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, wars fought on behalf of the United Nations, Defense systems, supporting foreign governments in the name of freedom, etc.

Sixty years later nothing has changed; Americans are still paying taxes and being dumbed down by propaganda provided by the governments and the controlled media. Docile as we may be, with fluoride in our drinking water, we are entertained with sports, recreation, movies, and just about anything else you can name all for sanctioning taxation. Public education being controlled by governments has also played a key role in developing a subservient citizen towards taxation and government. To prove this point we need only to look at what we are being told today. The government says "Budget Surplus," a normal person would say, "No, Excessive Taxation", or "Abusive Taxation". The government says it’s "their money", a normal person would say, "No, it’s my money!" The government doesn’t trust you with "your money", and therefore must decide on how it will be spent. And being a people fearful of the tyrants in government, we say nothing.

The truth is there is no Constitutional law for income tax as it is applied to the masses today.

IN 1913,AS YOU SO OFTEN HAVE HEARD ME SAY, THE 16TH AMEND- MENT WAS DECLARED TO BE RATIFIED AND THUS BECAME LAW. THIS ALLOWED THE CONGRESS TO NOT ONLY COLLECT LEVIES AND TARIFFS, BUT ALSO NOW GAVE THEM "AUTHORITY" TO TAX ALL STATE(S) RESIDENTS' INCOMES, NO MATTER HOW DERIVED. THUS CAME AUTHORITY FOR THE IRS, THE TAX CODE, AND NUMEROUS STATUTES AND MORE TAXES, FEES, ETC. THAT CONGRESS WANTED TO PASS LIKE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX, THE "GORE" TAX, SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES, MEDICARE, ESTATE, MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX, ETC.; HOWEVER AFTER 30 YEARS RESEARCH IT HAS BEEN FOUND OUT THAT (AND 17,000 CERTIFIED DOCUMENT FROM CONGRESS AND ALL REQUIRED 36 STATES TO RATIFY THE 16TH) THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER RATIFIED BY A SINGLE STATE. IT IS NULL AND VOID AS AN AMENDMENT AND AS "BASE AUTHORITY" FOR THE CONGRESS TO COLLECT STATE(S) RESIDENTS' INCOMES IS ALSO NULL AND VOID. THIS MEANS THE TAX LAWS PASSED FROM 1913 TO NOW ARE NULL AND VOID, SO IS THE IRS AND THE TAX CODES AND ALL TAX LAWS AND FORFEITURES UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE IRS OR ANY OTHER AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, LIKE ATF, FORESTRY, MARITIME AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE TAXES. ANYTHING COLLECTED OR THERE WAS A FEE OR TAX FOR,WAS DONE ILLEGALLY. IT IS THUS REFUNDABLE. TIME TO CHANGE THE TAXES TO A FLAT TAX OR NATIONAL SALES TAX, NO IRS OR AT LEAST NOT THE ROBBING MONSTER OF TODAY. JUST A FEW COMPUTERIZED REGIONAL OFFICES WITH JUST ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MAKE THEM RUN EFFICIENTLY. HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES. THE GOOD GUYS, THE PEOPLE, SOMETIMES DO WIN. WE'VE BEEN AFTER YOU FOR TAX REFORM FOR OVER 50 YEARS. LET'S SEE GOVERNMENT, HOW MUCH DO YOU OWE ME OR THAT IS US. I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT TAX CUT AND MORE. I WANT MY TOTAL MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY MONIES I PUT IN. I WANT THE $8,000.00 401K IRS TAX BACK YOU TOOK FROM MY 401K WHEN I HAD TO WITHDRAW IT DUE TO MY TERMINAL HEART ATTACK. I WANT ALL OF MY WITHHOLDING AND ADDITIONAL TAXES PAID SINCE I STARTED WORK IN 1966. SO FAR JUST FOR ME THAT'S $3 TO $5 MILLION DOLLARS I DON'T HAVE NOW. I'LL ASK MY WIFE WHAT SHE GETS BACK, THAT IS, HOW MUCH BACK. MR. PRESIDENT BUSH, CLINTON AND ALL HIS CONGRESS' JUST DIDN'T WANT TO LISTEN TO ME AND A FEW OTHERS SO THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION LIES WITH YOU AND THE 107TH OR 108TH CONGRESS. ASK SENATOR ORIN HATCH'S ATTORNEY, MR. RICHARDSON WHY HE TRIED TO HAVE THE RESEARCHER/WRITER, NOT TO PUBLISH HIS BOOK, THEN CAME BACK LATER TO SAY HE'D BUY THE WHOLE FIRST PRINTING, THE MANUSCRIPT AND SOME HUSH MONEY ALL ABOUT THE 16TH AMENDMENT NOT BEING RATIFIED AT ALL. GO AHEAD ASK UTAH'S SENATOR HATCH WHY HIS ATTORNEY DID THAT? HATCH KNOWS WHAT PANDEMONIUM THERE IS GOING TO BE. SORRY SIR, BUT THEY IN THE KNOW , ON THE HILL, LEFT THIS MESS TO YOU. IMAGINE, TAX(S) REFUNDS OF ALL TYPES ENACTED ILLEGALLY SINCE 1913? READ BILL BENSON'S BOOK "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS". GO TO WE THE PEOPLE.COM, OR DEVVY KIDD'S, OR IRS AGENT, JOE BANNISTER'S SITE, OR BILL CONKLIN'S WEB SITE OR THE BENSON SITE: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/ .

RODGER C. CLAPP, 4138 YELLOW PINE LANE, ORLANDO, FL 32811-2929 407-296-3108; SORRY CAPS USED, 1-FINGER TYPIST DUE TO PARALYSIS FROM 2- BRAIN STROKES AND 2- HEART ATTACKS-TERMINAL/ HEART INOPERABLE; NO TRANSPLANT. BUT STILL FIGHTING FOR THE CONSTITUTION

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Roland" jon.roland@constitution.org To: mail2news-20010210-alt.politics.reform@anon.lcs.mit.edu Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:22 PM Subject: [piml] Fw: Declaratory judgement acts as a tool for reform

> > > ------------------------ > FYI extracted from: > > http://home.HiWAAY.net/~becraft/BillsExplained.htm > > > From Larry Becrafts web page in ref: to Bill Benson's suit. The power of > declaratory judgments is laid out here. One ex parte is even more difficult > for a judge to get around. Most state statutes contain such common law > provision. > > This suit is based upon what is typically called a declaratory judgment > statute, which allows suits to be filed to determine the rights of parties > and even to obtain the construction and meaning of statutes; declaratory > judgment actions can even be filed to challenge a statute as > unconstitutional. The declaratory judgment act may be used to determine the > rights, duties or obligations of parties to a contract without any party > being compelled to breach the contract. It may be used whenever anyone seeks > a declaration of rights or obligations under any circumstance. > > But most importantly, one of the purposes of the declaratory judgment > act was to allow people to sue government to determine their rights under a > state law (barring, of course, exceptions like the anti-injunction act in > federal law). An example of such a case is the Ben Mauldin case in Texas, > which is a pending declaratory judgment case. Ben objects to providing his > social insecurity number to the plumbers' board just to get a license. In > the past, he has even provided his SSN to that state agency, thus it > currently has his number. But the board was sued to secure a determination > that the law requiring Ben's SSN was unconstitutional because it violates > equal protection. The board has not offered a defense that this suit falls > outside the scope of the declaratory judgment statute, and the reason that > "defense" has not been made is because a wealth of cases declare that such a > suit can be filed. See, for example, State ex rel Board of Examiners in > Optometry v. Lawton, 523 P.2d 1064 (Okla. 1974). > > Oklahoma also has a declaratory judgment statute. In 12 O.S. ï¿½1651, the > following is provided: > > "ï¿½1651. Determination of Rights, Status or Other Legal Relations - > Exceptions. > "District courts may, in cases of actual controversy, determine rights, > status, or other legal relations, including but not limited to a > determination of the construction or validity of any foreign judgment or > decree, deed, contract, trust, or other instrument or agreement or of any > statute, municipal ordinance, or other governmental regulation, whether or > not other relief is or could be claimed, except that no such declaration > shall be made concerning liability or nonliability for damages on account of > alleged tortious injuries to persons or to property either before or after > judgment or for compensation alleged to be due under workers' compensation > laws for injuries to persons or concerning obligations alleged to arise > under policies of insurance covering liability or indemnity against > liability for such injuries. The determination may be made either before or > after there has been a breach of any legal duty or obligation, and it may be > either affirmative or negative in form and effect; provided however, that a > court may refuse to make such determination where the judgment, if rendered, > would not terminate the controversy, or some part thereof, giving rise to > the proceeding." > > This statute is cited and quoted in Bill's complaint. Pursuant to this > Oklahoma statute, anyone may sue the State to determine rights under a > legislative act. Oklahomans may do this as well as people who do not live in > Oklahoma. > The Oklahoma declaratory judgment statute does not contain any > limitation that only state citizens may sue the State; non-residents may > also do it and they frequently do use the declaratory judgment act to sue > the State. The reason that the State cannot limit the declaratory judgment > statute to only state citizens is because such would violate the "privileges > and immunities" clause of Art. IV, section 2, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution > as well as the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. See Ward v. > Maryland, 12 Wall. (79 U.S.) 418 1871) (discriminatory state tax on > non-residents was void via "privileges and immunities" clause); Travis v. > Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., 252 U.S. 60, 40 S.Ct. 228 (1920)(exemptions > in state income tax law not available to non-residents violated "privileges > and immunities" clause); Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 284 U.S. 239, > 52 S.Ct. 133 (1931)(discriminatory tax on national banks violated equal > protection); Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 95 S.Ct. 1191 > (1975)(Maine residents challenged New Hampshire's commuters' income tax, > which was held a violation of "privileges and immunities" clause); Zobel v. > Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 102 S.Ct. 2309 (1982)(Alaska's tax refund arising > from large oil revenues distinguished between those living in state before > 1959 and those not; held violative of equal protection); Hooper v. > Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 105 S.Ct. 2862 (1985)(exemption > allowed to Viet Nam vets living in state before 1976 but denied to others > violated equal protection); and Haman v. County of Humboldt, 106 Cal.Rptr. > 617, 506 P.2d 993 (1973)(discrimination between residents having in-state > boats and those having them outside of the State violated equal protection). >