Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!harvard!rclex!necntc!frog!tdh From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: the infamous income tax Message-ID: <1074@frog.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 19:23:18 EDT Article-I.D.: frog.1074 Posted: Mon Oct 6 19:23:18 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:57:35 EDT Distribution: talk Organization: Superfrog Heaven [ CRDS, Framingham MA ] Lines: 151 I received the following handbill. It looks interesting, but I wonder what its author(s?) expected would come of it. David Hudson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jurisdiction Journal and Sovereign Review | March & April 1986 (Vol. VI, No. 31) > | Big news from Seattle! Red Beckman reports that on February 12, 1986, > at the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney Larry Becraft | argued (in the case of *US v. Stahl*) that because the 16th > "Amendment" was not ratified, the government has no authority to | incarcerate anyone for not paying income taxes or for not filing > returns. | > Observers report that the 3-judge panel appeared deeply stirred by | Becraft's presentation. During the first 10 minutes or so of oral > argument the judges just listened attentively, but as the presentation | fully developed they began to interrupt to ask questions. The > questions were penetrating, on point, and refreshingly free of bias. | > Also, it quickly became obvious that these judges had carefully read | Becraft's previously-submitted written materials. As Becraft moved > into his concluding remarks, the judges seemed especially attentive, | hanging onto his every word. > | At the end of the defense's allotted time (30 minutes), the judges > continued to probe Becraft for more details. Although the questions | became more penetrating, the judges gave Stahl's attorney more time to > answer. As the court began to grasp the implications of what they | were hearing, they paused in their questioning of Becraft and turned > to Assistant United States Attorney Robert Zimmerman (who was handling | the prosecution side of the case). > | Almost from the start, the court interrupted the government's > presentation with increasingly harsh questions; and the answers | elicited by those questions were beginning to demolish the > government's case. | > Apparently becoming desparate, the US Attorney's representative tried | to casually dismiss the defense position by stating that whether the > "16th" had been ratified or not was immaterial to the government's | position, that the government was relying on the "excise tax" > provision in the body of the Constitution, not the 16th "Amendment"! | > Shocked by this revelation, the judges turned to Becraft for a | response. The defense lawyer dryly re-marked that THAT IS *EXACTLY* > WHAT NUMEROUS PATRIOT'S HAVE ASSERTED IN THEIR DEFENSE, BUT THE | GOVERNMENT PUTS *THEM* IN PRISON! > | The judges, now clearly fed up with the government attorney, turned > back to Becraft. Renewing their questioning, this time displaying | unmistakable friendliness, the court gave the defense lawyer ample > opportunity to fully develop his argument. | > Becraft's appearance stemmed from the case of *US v. Stahl*, a Montana | patriot who had been convicted of tax charges in March, 1985. At this > trial, one of the first in which the non-ratification of the 16th | "Amendment" was the primary defense, Judge William B. Enright was > described by observers as having displayed the utmost hostility and | bias against the defense position. > | MORE FIREWORKS AHEAD > | More fireworks regarding the non-ratification of the 16th "Amendment" > are expected March 3, 1986 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In another | criminal case (*US v. House*) in the Federal 6th Circuit Court, the > government is expected to argue that "too much time" has passed since | 1913 and that the precedent has been established, etc., etc., buzz, > buzz! | > To counter such a move, Huntsville attorney Larry Becraft will cite | the US Supreme Court's recent favorable ruling (*Hohri v. US*) in the > case of reparations for Japanese AAmerican internees (WWII), asserting | that even though the "wrong" occurred more than 40 years ago the > victims have made a valid and timely claim. | > In addition to the non-ratification argument, Becraft is expected to | make a sharp attack on the government's long "concealment" of the > fraud which occurred in 1913. | > As background to these actions, J&R readers should be aware that the | 16th Amendment (INCOME TAX) was not lawfully ratified. This means > that the federal personal income tax in the United States is actually | a fraud!! It is unlawful. It is "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS!" > | These are the only conclusions an honest person can reach when brought > face to face with the devastating evidence uncovered by Bill Benson, a | former criminal investigator for the Illinois State Department of > Revenue. | > Benson's shocking revelations are coming to light some 70 years after | the "Income Tax Amendment" supposedly became law. In 1913, Secretary > of State Philander C. Knox, in complicity with his Solicitor (legal | counsel), *wilfully* and falsely declared that three fourths of the 48 > states had ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States | Constitution. > | Bill launched his investigation in February, 1984, and in the next > nine months, travelled to the capitals of all 48 states and to the | National Archives in Washington, DC. He obtained more than 17,000 > pages of documents -- all certified -- which prove that the 16th | Amendment was not ratified. > | In the basement of the National Archives, Benson discovered some 500 > pages of important documentation. Among these long-forgotten records | was a 16-page memorandum dated February 15, 1913, to Secretary of > State Philander C. Knox from his Solicitor. The memorandum clearly | indicates that, as of that date, only four states had "correctly" > ratified the amendment, Minnesota had not "yet" transmitted a copy of | its resolution, and the resolutions of 33 states contained > punctuation, capitalization, or wording which differed from that of | the Resolution approved by Congress. > | Regarding proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, the > law is very specific. Discrepancies between what a state legislature | ratifies and what was submitted to them for ratification by the United > States Congress renders the states "ratification" action null and | void. > | State legislatures presuming to ratify a proposed Constitutional > amendment must do so ONLY in *complete* agreement with, and in the | exact form of (including punctuation), a certified copy of the > proposed amendment as passed by Congress in a Joint Resolution. The | applicability of this legal principle was acknowledged by the > Solicitor (a lawyer) in his memorandum of February 15, 1913 to | Secretary of State Knox (also a lawyer). > | So despite his having personal knowledge of the discrepancies, > Secretary of State Knox certified that the 16th Amendment had been | ratified. > | Perhaps not surprisingly, when Benson researched the Senate and House > Journals of the 48 states, he discovered that most of the *alleged* | "errors" were in fact NOT errors. He found that most of the wording > changes, "misplaced" commas, etc., were accomplished by legislative | *intent*, not by accident. Incredibly, the certified documents Bill > obtained prove that NOT EVEN *ONE* state properly ratified the 16th | Amendment! > | DOCUMENTATION FORMED INTO NEW BOOK > | Much of the explosive documentation of the "16th Amendment" FRAUD has > been condensed in "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS", Volumes I and II. Bill | Benson and M. J. "Red" Beckman are co-authors of a couple of real > blockbusters -- each volume 350-plus pages, hard-cover bound. | Contents include a fotocopy of the Solicitor's 16-page memorandum of > February 15, 1913, and separate narrative reports on the | "ratification" actions of each of the 48 states. Fully EXPOSED is the > FRAUD which has been perpetrated upon the general public of the United | States since 1913.