https://www.infowars.com/the-founding-fathers-smugglers-tax-evaders-and-traitors/

 

THE FOUNDING FATHERS: SMUGGLERS, TAX EVADERS, AND TRAITORS

Americans were not fighting the British. The Americans were British.

 

Not only is this important, it is also praiseworthy; it produced the most advanced civilization ever known.

The Revolution is often said to have begun in 1775 at the Battle of Lexgton. In truth, it began in the 16th century when the first colonists began traveling to the New World. Consider the hardships these people faced. Abandoning their relatives and friends, they boarded small leaky boats like the Mayflower—which was only as long as six automobiles—to spend months crossing 3,000 miles of storm-tossed ocean.

Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would risk their lives and their children’s lives to escape it?

Socialism. It wasn’t called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody. There were no free markets and no free enterprise. Regardless of how honest or hard working a person was, it did him little good unless he was in bed with the government.

Out of desperation many rebelled. They evaded the controIs and taxes, creating an underground economy. InRoots of Capitalism, historian John Chamberlain writes that in France:

America was a vast, uncharted wilderness beyond the reach of the politicians and tax collectors. It was nominally under the control of the European governments, but everyone knew it was too big and too far away for laws to be enforced there.

In short, America was a huge underground economy. Here trade was free and enterprise unrestricted. Taxes were so often evaded that for all practical purposes there were none; a person could keep everything he earned. He could save and invest, and eventually have his own thriving business or farm that would provide jobs for the next wave of immigrants.

Inhabited by rebellious, individualistic smugglers and tax evaders, America quickly became the most prosperous place on earth.

You may have seen pictures of the Pine Tree Flag flown by American warships during the Revolution. Why would the colonists put a pine tree on their battle flag?

The government had enacted a regulation saying no colonist could cut down tall, straight trees; these trees were to be reserved for masts on Navy ships. This meant the best, most valuable trees on a person’s land had, in effect, been confiscated by the government.

When a government tree inspector would come through the forest to select and mark the best trees, colonists would follow him. These inspectors were highly trained experts, good at identifying the best trees for Navy ships—the Navy ships that were constantly pursuing smuggling ships.

When the government’s lumberjacks then came through the forest to collect the marked trees, they would find the trees had already been cut and sold—for use on the smuggling ships.

One of these ships was The Liberty, owned by John Hancock. Hancock was a successful wine merchant known throughout the colonies as “The Prince of Smugglers.” His reputation eventually earned him the honor of being the first to sign the Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately, as the story of the Pine Tree illustrates, America did not remain beyond the reach of government. As the colonists’ wealth increased, politicians began making more and more efforts to steal—”tax”—this wealth. More and more bureaucrats and troops were sent to the colonies to enforce laws and shut down the underground economy.

The colonists’ reaction was dramatic. The infamous Stamp Tax, for instance, was greeted by armed rebellion; tax collectors were tarred and feathered, a procedure which usually resulted in death. When John Hancock was arrested, the people rioted and the government’s agents barely escaped with their lives.

This brings us to one of the most important but forgotten events in American history. In his 1818 analysis of the Revolution, John Adams spoke of it when he asked,

The key word here is religious. In Adams’ analysis, he said a sermon delivered by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew on January 30, 1750, was “read by everybody” and was crucially important in leading to revolution.

In that sermon Mayhew argued that there is a Higher Law than any government’s law. The people, he said, are required to obey their government’s law only when it is in agreement with Higher Law. Indeed, he argued, if the government violates Higher Law, “we are bound to throw off our allegiance” and “to resist.”

What was this Higher Law? The ancient Common Law, which most colonists understood and obeyed faithfully even though they ridiculed and ignored the laws and taxes enacted by politicians.

Common Law had evolved from two basic principles: 1) do all you have agreed to do, and 2) do not encroach on other people or their property. These are the two principles on which all major religions and philosophies agree. Each expresses them a bit differently, but all agree on these two laws and not much else).

These two laws are the source of all our essential prohibitions against theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc. “Do all you have agreed to do” is the basis of contract law; “do not encroach on other people or their property” is the basis of criminal and tort law.

Common Law was the law to which the American colonists were dedicated, and it was the law the politicians and bureaucrats were breaking—they were encroaching. So the colonists overthrew their government; they committed treason.

This is what the American Revolution was all about—treason. And this treason was regarded as moral, ethical, and right in every way. It was derived straight from Common Law which was based on the people’s religious beliefs. Wrote the great legal scholar Sir William Blackstone, “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other…no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”

Contrary to what we so often read, the Americans were not fighting the British. The Americans were British. The war broke out at Lexington in April 1775, fifteen months before independence was declared. Therefore, for the first fifteen months of the war, America was still a part of Britain and Americans were still Englishmen fighting their own government. As their many pamphlets and speeches explained, they were fighting for “The Rights of Englishmen!”

They were enforcing Higher Law. This eternal and immutable law said the politicians and bureaucrats were as human as anyone else and they had no special rights or privileges; they could not encroach on others. “All men are created equal,” wrote Thomas Jefferson.

So, the most important and praiseworthy fact about the Founders which is rarely discussed is that they believed in a Higher Law than any government’s, and they did something about it. They evaded their government’s taxes and regulations. They delivered speeches and wrote pamphlets informing others, and they eventually overthrew their government and set up a new one more closely in agreement with Higher Law.

The highly advanced, prosperous civilization we now enjoy was the direct result of their enforcement of Higher Law, and this civilization will continue only if Higher Law is reapplied, soon. Tell others.

https://www.infowars.com/the-founding-fathers-smugglers-tax-evaders-and-traitors/

 
Join the discussion…
LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS
  • Enkidu<->Founders' Protégé • 2 hours ago

    Great dissertation. I love reading about the Founders glorious and adventurous exploits. We are living in a strikingly similar atmosphere today, but far more complex. I know this, America has become a powder keg and is about to erupt. Indeed, the whole world is. We have a bunch of modern day tyrants operating. (“Globalists”) They are hell bent on a totalitarian model that they identify as “Global Governance”, aka, the “Liberal International Order”. They fear that President Trump has rejuvenated the American sleeping giant, and that it is about to destroy their diabolical plan to implement global governance.

    The US led liberal international order is in crisis https://blog.oup.com/2018/0...

    “What is most shocking to liberals is that the significant threat appears to be at ‘home’, i.e., in the western heartlands: First, Britain voted to ‘Brexit’ the EU; then Trump defeated liberal-order champion Hillary Clinton. For the first time since 1945, a US President won office by attacking the principal relationships that are the very sinews of established order – NATO, American Middle eastern policy, East Asian security treaties.” See also The end of liberal international order? ~ G. John Ikenberry https://academic.oup.com/ia...

    In sum and simplified, liberals and neo-conservatives complain that President Trump is destroying the post WWII international order of which they delusionally believe was predicated on their liberal socialist ideals. (“Globalism”) However, the post-WWII order was based in large on America’s Constitutional principles, and is identified as the “Open International Order”. (populism and nationalism) In effect the liberals and neocons usurped the Open Order and reshaped it in their own image via the New World Order, (“NWO”) one that mirrors authoritarian governing systems such as Communism, Monarchies, and the like. In effect, they are attempting to institute a world wide tyranny built by slaves (the working and middle class) and controlled by the ultra elite.

    President Trump is restoring the Open International Order and that of our own Constitutional Republic, and it looks like he is going to do it with the assistance of Russia. Both America and Russia were scheduled for destruction, and they were supposed to destroy each other after being deceptively and unjustly provoked into military conflict. (Syria; Salisbury; Crimea; MH17; Election tampering, Trump, Brexit, and others; tracking and tapping into subsurface international communications cables; the new alleged poisoning in Britain, reported 7/2018; etc.) They are doing everything in their power to keep Trump and Putin apart.

  • Tom Paine • 4 hours ago

    The two common law principles accord with Libertarianism.
    The masses need to awaken somehow and realize government is not God but might very well be the Devil incarnate.

  • loftocracy • 7 hours ago

    The American war of independence was about decentralising political power away from the

    "Please sir can I have Samoa" pirate interest group runing the British parliamen

     
  • John Matthews • 7 hours ago

    Mysterious Street Lines of Washington D.C.

    https://ia800206.us.archive...

  • Tony Dartford • 8 hours ago

    The ships may have been small but the American colonists travelled back and forth and were not as persecuted as we are made to believe.

  • California D.R.E.A.M.ing • 10 hours ago

    When Betsy Ross and George Washington sat next together in church pews and discussed the design of the American flag, they were breaking the law.

  • Stephen Tassio • 11 hours ago

    It is indeed a good thing the Patriots were not liberal soy boy gurly guys.

  • Propaganda Sponge • 13 hours ago

    I eat at Chinese joints most nights since my fortune cookies are smarter than my own decisions.

  • French Revolution vs USA's • 16 hours ago

    George Washington FAILED to mount a counter offensive,
    attack London, and failed to put to death the entire Royal Family.

    Had America counter attacked and captured London, the world would be quite different.

    FRANCE did follow through on their revolution, inspired by the USA revolution:
    https://www.youtube.com/wat...

    • Col_Haugnaughty  French Revolution vs USA's • 13 hours ago

      That does not follow the outline of prophesy, However, Ephraim was to become a great nation and company of nations (common wealth) before the rise of the first born Manasseh who would become just one great nation (The Untied Sates of America). Read Gen 48 and 49, ancient Israel did not fulfill that prophesy but Great Britain and America did.

      • California D.R.E.A.M.ing  Col_Haugnaughty • 10 hours ago

        Explain further. You are saying that those who call themselves Jews today are liars?

  • $$$ Dodgy Handshake Club $$$ • 16 hours ago

    "They delivered speeches and wrote pamphlets informing others, and 
    they eventually overthrew their government and set up a new one more 
    closely in agreement with Higher Law.

    The highly advanced, prosperous civilization we now enjoy was the
    direct result of their enforcement of Higher Law, and this civilization
    will continue only if Higher Law is reapplied, soon. Tell others."

    oh how nice and fluffy that all sounds

    You know that Adolf sHitler, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Mr Mao Pants in China, Pol Pot , Castro, Marshall Pertain of France, Rooservelt and many many other Country leaders all did Masonic Handshakes or the Hidden Hand right ?

    According to Henry Macow the Bavarian "illuminati" Central Banksters run all those Freemason Puppets

    look, there's a photo of Adolf von sHitler doing Masonic handshakes with Marshall Pertain of France...the Country Hitler looted, oh look, there's a photo of PUTIN doing Masonic handshakes with Heinz von New World Order Kissinger

    https://www.henrymakow.com/...

    Kim Jong Rocketboy the Commie Dictator is a freemason too land he likes to sing the Bavarian Volk Songs he learned at the Lieberfeld (sounds German eh?) school in Masonic Switzerland

    • Stephen Tassio  $$$ Dodgy Handshake Club $$$ • 11 hours ago

      Who cares who is in the old boys club?

      Despite their corrupt influence America is still the greatest country on earth.

      That is American Exceptionalism.

      And now the Post Communist/Globalist ERA is here America will become even greater than before.

  • Legalize Freedom • 17 hours ago

    "Common Law had evolved from two basic principles: 1) do all you have agreed to do, and 2) do not encroach on other people or their property. These are the two principles on which all major religions and 
    philosophies agree. Each expresses them a bit differently, but all agree on these two laws and not much else)"

    This has been eliminated through the US government Civil Asset And Forfeiture laws. Slaves are not allowed to own property. Get the picture?

    The AmeriKan government today is a totalitarian government. If with everything going on today with the violation of Americans rights, there has not already been a violent revolution against said government, then there never will be.

    "But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.

    The key word here is religious. In Adams’ analysis, he said a sermon delivered by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew on January 30, 1750, was “read by everybody” and was crucially important in leading to revolution.

    In that sermon Mayhew argued that there is a Higher Law than any government’s law. The people, he said, are required to obey their government’s law only when it is in agreement with Higher Law. Indeed, he argued, if the government violates Higher Law, “we are bound to throw off our allegiance” and “to resist.”

    What was this Higher Law? The ancient Common Law, which most colonists understood and obeyed faithfully even though they ridiculed and ignored the laws and taxes enacted by politicians."

    The problem today is the American peoples religion IS GOVERNMENT! The bible told men to obey god rather than men. A god is to whom you ultimately serve. So why are all these Americans going to church on Sunday and saying that they serve an invisible man that lives in the sky, when in reality they serve and obey government?

    "You are not Christians. You are not Jews. You are not Muslims and you certainly are not atheist. You all have the same god and it's name is 'government' You're all members of the most evil, insane, destructive cult in history. If there ever was a devil, the state is it. And you worship it with all your heart and soul." ~ Larken Rose

  • Christian Gains • 18 hours ago

    John Maybury has published Several Books, (From the "UNCLE ERIC'S MODEL of HOW THE WORLD WORKS" series).

    Here's 3 of them:{ "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?"-- "Whatever Happened To Justice?" and "Ancient Rome, How it Effects You Today"} ... [ Published by Bluestocking Press; P.O.Box 1014; AR - Placerville CA. 95667-1014]

    AND!

    They're ALL a SIMPLY TRUE Early American History Education, similar to the above Article...It's FANTASTIC READING & LEARNING for ANY AGE!

    He dispels the lies and exaggerations concerning BOTH the American Revolution AND the effects of BAD ECONOMIC POLICIES that have plagued America for YEARS!...(psss!...AND WHY!!...).

    You CAN'T go wrong reading the SIMPLE TRUTH ... The "COMMON LAW" realty & truth!!

  • Johnny Elvis • 18 hours ago

    Good history article. The early colonists actually referred to the lawyers as vermin, and right so, since they knew the collusion which occurred back home between their ilk and the royalty. http://gloog.us/wordpress/2...

    If people are to resist, then they need to be enlightened. The 16th Amendment is a sham, it is truly the law that never was, but Americans are afraid to file "EXEMPT" when they truly have every right to do so, as long as their work is not paid for by tax revenue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

    • Todd  Johnny Elvis • 5 hours ago

      Perhaps I can enlighten you. 
      1) I filed "EXEMPT" on my w2 tax form, and they took taxes anyway.
      2) from your article In 2007, and again in 2009, Benson's contentions were ruled to be fraudulent.
      3) Just because they ruled it fraudulent does not mean it is fraudulent. They are the crooks. but the point is, that it has nothing to do with being "afraid" to file exempt. Actually, they won't let you file exempt.

    • California D.R.E.A.M.ing  Johnny Elvis • 10 hours ago

      Laywers are not vermin. Step back. Lawyers are the only ones who defend your Constitutional rights. The District Attorney and Independent Prosecutor don't do that. Nor does the Chief of Police or Sheriff. Other than your lawyer, all you have between injustice and the State are the Jurors.

      • alleyboy59  California D.R.E.A.M.ing • 3 hours ago

        Your point is well taken. On the other hand the actions of many cast a shadow over the profession. As a group, you have to be vigilant to impose discipline to improve the reputation, much like clergy or police

         
      • Todd  California D.R.E.A.M.ing • 5 hours ago

        All he said was that the founding fathers referred to them as vermin.
        so you should step back. also, I am going to call them vermin. Want a piece?

    • John M. Brown  Johnny Elvis • 17 hours ago

      Why would you even file if you're exempt in the first place?

  • The Walrus • 19 hours ago

    What was it, 93% of the Population was BORN here at the Time of the Revolutionary War?

    Why does this lie of us being a Nation of Immigrants get told? /Rhet

    You're not an immigrant to a place of you were born there. An immigrant is a One generation type existence.

    Look at the one who speak this lie. They are the Ones who openly try to destroy this nation

    • allright  The Walrus • 3 hours ago

      Legal "immigration" didn't suddenly stop after the 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd (or later) generations, post Revolutionary War. To believe all peoples of the USA are direct descendants of the original colonists is folly, at best.

      The above facts notwithstanding, illegal "immigration" must be stopped. Illegal invaders must be deported. Legal "immigration" laws must be revamped and modernized. Also, the 14th amendment must be either updated to strike the "anchor baby" allowance, or be repealed and/or removed all together from the US Constitution, otherwise "US citizenship" is a farce and will eventually become totally worthless.

    • Dermbo  The Walrus • 14 hours ago

      Expand thier logic and you come to the conclusion that the world is just one big migrant wave after another, that is history of man in a nutshell. They push this for World Dominance and we the plebs are to just shut up and grovel for scraps.
      The type of government that the founders eschewed was one that works for the people in accordance with the laws written in the Constitution. Unfortunately we have been lulled into a stupor , for many , many generations and allowed those who view it as a God given right to once again control us and live lives of opulence at our expense.
      Something has to change

The Law that Never Was

 

The Law that Never Was

 

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax is a 1985 book by William J. Benson and Martin J. "Red" Beckman which claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the income tax amendment, was never properly ratified. In 2007, and again in 2009, Benson's contentions were ruled to be fraudulent.

 

 
 

Contents

 

 

 

BackgroundEdit

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment proposed by Congress must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution. The Article permits Congress to specify, for each amendment, whether the ratification must be by each state's legislature or by a constitutional convention in each state; for the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress specified ratification by the legislatures. There were 48 states in the Union in 1913 — the year when the Sixteenth Amendment was finally ratified — which meant that the Amendment required ratification by the legislatures of 36 states to become effective. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander C. Knox issued a proclamation that 38 states had ratified the amendment. (According to Congressional analysis, a total of 42 states had ratified the amendment as of 1992.)[1]

 

ContentionsEdit

Prior to Benson, the "non-ratification" argument was presented in a court of law by James Walter Scott in the 1975 case of United States v. Scott, some sixty-two years after the ratification. Scott's argument was to no avail; he was convicted of willful failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 1969 through 1972, and the conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[2] In a 1977 case involving a tax protester named Bob Tammen, a U.S. District Court noted that Tammen was involved with a group called "United Tax Action Patriots," which took the position "that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly passed and therefore invalid...." However, the specific issue of the validity of the ratification was neither presented to nor decided by the court.[3]

William Benson's book relates how, in 1984, nine years after the Scott case and seventy-one years after the ratification was proclaimed, Benson began a research project to investigate the ratification process by traveling to the National Archives and the capitols of various New England states to review documents relating to the ratification of the Amendment.

Benson found variations in wording, punctuation, capitalization, and pluralization in the language of the Amendment as ratified by many states. He used the changes as part of the basis for his contention that those states had not properly ratified the Amendment. Benson further claimed to have found documents suggesting that some states that had been certified as having ratified the Amendment never voted to ratify it, or voted against ratification. Benson claimed that no states, or only a few states (variously reported as two states or four states), had properly ratified the Amendment.

In his book, Benson made the following claims:

  • Seven states (Connecticut, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia) did not ratify the amendment, and it was reported as such.
  • Two states (Kentucky and Tennessee) did not ratify the amendment, but Secretary Knox reported that they did.
  • Eight states (Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont and Wyoming) were reported by Secretary Knox as having ratified the amendment, but the States actually have missing or incomplete records of the ratification procedures or votes, and there is no conclusive record that they ratified the amendment or reported any ratification to the Secretary of State.
  • Six states (Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington) did approve the amendment, but the Governor or another official who was required by their respective state constitutions to sign the legislation into law did not sign the legislation.
  • In twenty-five states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming), the legislature violated a provision of its state constitution during the ratification process.
  • Twenty-nine states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming) violated "state law" or procedural rules during the ratification process.

Additionally, Benson asserted that:

  • Twenty-two states approved the amendment, but with changes in wording, and the inexact version was accepted as a ratification of the original version.
  • One state approved the amendment, but with variations in spelling, and the inexact version was accepted as a ratification of the original version.
  • At least twenty-six states approved the amendment, but with changes in punctuation, and the inexact version was accepted as a ratification of the original version.

Benson asserted that the Oklahoma State Legislature changed the wording of the amendment they approved so that it meant the opposite of the original amendment as it was submitted to the States by Congress, but that Secretary Knox counted Oklahoma as having approved the amendment.

Benson also asserted, as an example of a state’s violation of its own Constitution, laws, or procedural rules, the claim that the Tennessee State Constitution prohibited the legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution submitted by Congress until after the next state legislative elections. According to Benson, the Tennessee legislature acted on the proposed 16th amendment the same month it was received (prior to any new state legislative elections).

 

Legal status of Benson's claimsEdit

The Benson book was published in 1985. The earliest reported court cases where the book was mentioned appear to be United States v. House[4] and United States v. Wojtas.[5] Benson testified unsuccessfully in the House case. In the latter case, defendant Wayne Wojtas was unsuccessful in his attempt to use Benson's theory to have his indictment for failure to file federal tax returns dismissed. In the case the judge ruled that Benson's evidence was inadmissible, stating that:

Wojtas was convicted, sentenced to prison, and released in August 1986.[6]

Benson's claim was also rejected in Miller v. United States.[7] The court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company ... and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court then sanctioned the litigants for advancing a "patently frivolous" position.

Similar "Sixteenth Amendment arguments" have been uniformly rejected by the courts in other cases including United States v. Thomas.[8] In Thomas the court, in affirming the tax convictions of Kenneth L. Thomas, referred to Benson's book and noted that the errors found by Benson had already been investigated by Secretary of State Knox at the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and had been determined to be insignificant. (See Tax protester constitutional arguments.)

Arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified were also rejected in Sisk v. Commissioner;[9] United States v. Sitka;[10] and United States v. Stahl.[11] The non-ratification argument has also been deemed legally frivolous in Brown v. Commissioner[12] and Lysiak v. Commissioner.[13]

The argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal income tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).[14]

 

Benson's federal income tax problemsEdit

In United States v. Benson,[15] a criminal case, Benson himself raised the Sixteenth Amendment argument, which was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In this phase of the case, his conviction for tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns was overturned on other grounds and the case was remanded to the trial court.

Upon retrial, Benson was again convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. The conduct for which he was convicted involved over $100,000 of income he did not report on Federal income tax returns. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation.[16]

Benson continued to promote his views. Until early 2008, Benson included verbiage on his web site – in quotation marks – that he attributed to the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, an early case interpreting the Amendment. He quoted the Court as saying that the Sixteenth Amendment "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals."[17] The text of the Court's decision does not contain any such quotation.[18] No U.S. Federal court has ever ruled that any provision of the United States Constitution forbids any direct taxation of individuals. Benson apparently removed the material after a court order was issued regarding his materials.

Until January 2008, Benson's web site also stated: "After serving time in federal prison for not paying his United States income taxes, Bill Benson still does not pay income taxes and yet our federal government chooses not to arrest him. Why? Because now he can use this book, which he has written : 'THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS' in his defense."[19] Similarly, as late as the year 2007, Benson claimed, in marketing the "Reliance Defense Package" that included his non-ratification argument, that "[t]o date, the IRS has steadfastly refused to prosecute any person standing on this defense. Why do they do this? Because they know they cannot win!!"[20]The book was actually published several years before Benson's arrest and, as noted above, Benson himself actually was convicted despite using the defense.

In one of Benson's cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated:

 

Benson's non-ratification argument ruled fraudulentEdit

On December 17, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Benson's "Reliance Defense Package" (including Benson's Sixteenth Amendment non-ratification argument), which Benson sold to customers via the internet, constituted a "fraud perpetrated by Benson" that had "caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources."[22]

The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes. Also, as is indicated above, Benson is precluded in this action from taking the position that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified."[23] The court stated that "the undisputed evidence shows that Benson had actual knowledge that the information in the Reliance Defense Package was false or fraudulent."[24] The court also stated: "Benson falsely tells customers that if they purchase and use his products they will be shielded from criminal prosecution for violating the internal revenue laws. Purchasers of the 'Reliance Defense Package' receive a letter signed by Benson that falsely represents that the purchaser can rely on Benson's research to conclude that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and that the purchaser is thereby not required to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income or social security taxes to the United States."[25] The court ruled that "Benson's position has no merit and he has used his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and profit from it" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700.[26]

The court granted an injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 prohibiting Benson from promoting the theories in Benson's "Reliance Defense Package," which the court referred to as "false and fraudulent advice concerning the payment of federal taxes."[27][28] The court injunction requires that Benson send his customers copies of the order, and that he post the order on his website.[29] As of January 2008 Benson had modified his web site and posted a copy of the court order.

Benson appealed the decision of the District Court. Benson argued that prohibiting him from selling his “Reliance Defense Package” and his “16th Amendment Reliance Package” was a violation of his First Amendment Rights. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that argument in a ruling on April 6, 2009. The Court ruled that although Benson could sell his book, The Law that Never Was, the court order prohibiting him from selling his “Reliance Defense Package” and his “16th Amendment Reliance Package” did not violate his First Amendment Right, as the sale of those two items constituted "false commercial speech."[30]

The Court of Appeals stated:

Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements were false or fraudulent. 26 U.S.C. [section] 6700(a)(2)(A). Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal. [ . . . . ] Benson knows that his claim that he can rely on his book to prevent federal prosecution is equally false because his attempt to rely on his book in his own criminal case was ineffective.[31]

The Court of Appeals also ruled that the government could obtain a ruling ordering Benson to turn his customer list over to the government.[32] Benson petitioned the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court denied his petition in November 2009.[33]

 

Followers of BensonEdit

Followers of Benson who have been convicted of federal tax crimes include Kenneth L. Thomas and Wayne Wojtas (see above). Additionally, on March 6, 2008, the United States Attorney's office in Grand Rapids, Michigan announced that Charles E. Hughes of Dansville, Michigan had been convicted of four counts of tax evasion. Hughes had purchased Benson's "16th Amendment Reliance Defense Package" for $3,500, and had used the materials. The U.S. Attorney's office stated:

Although the legal analysis and claims contained in the package have been thoroughly discredited, some persons who purchase this or similar packages have used it in an attempt to justify their decision to stop paying federal income taxes. Hughes made that choice. He failed to file his 2000 through 2002, and 2004 federal tax returns, despite having more than $300,000 in income over that period. In addition to his failure to file returns, Hughes also took affirmative steps to avoid having federal tax withheld from his income, including the filing of fraudulent forms.[34]

Hughes was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison,[35] and was incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution at Ashland, Kentucky. He served his time and was released from prison in May 2009.[36]

 

See alsoEdit

 

NotesEdit

  1. ^ Senate Document No. 103-6 (1992 ed.), Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution; Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (United States Government Printing Office). "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2008-02-05. Retrieved 2008-02-06.
  2. ^ United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975).
  3. ^ See Ex parte Tammen, 438 F. Supp. 349, 78-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9302 (N.D. Tex. 1977), at [1].
  4. ^ 617 F. Supp. 237, 87-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9562 (W.D. Mich. 1985).
  5. ^ 611 F. Supp. 118 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
  6. ^ Wayne Francis Wojtas, inmate # 93604-024, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Dep't of Justice, at [2].
  7. ^ 868 F.2d 236 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9184 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
  8. ^ 788 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 853, 107 S. Ct. 187 (1986), at [3]. See also United States v. Thomas, 934 F.2d 840 (7th Cir. 1991), at [4].
  9. ^ 791 F.2d 58, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9433 (6th Cir. 1986).
  10. ^ 845 F.2d 43, 88-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9308 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 827 (1988).
  11. ^ 792 F.2d 1438, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9518 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987). See generally United States v. Hempfling, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Calif. 2006).
  12. ^ 53 T.C.M. (CCH) 94, T.C. Memo 1987-78, CCH Dec. 43,696(M) (1987).
  13. ^ 816 F.2d 311, 87-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9296 (7th Cir. 1987).
  14. ^ 26 U.S.C. § 6702, as amended by section 407 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922 (Dec. 20, 2006). See Notice 2008-14, item 9j, I.R.B. 2008-4 (Jan. 14, 2008), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury (superseding Notice 2007-30).
  15. ^ 941 F.2d 598, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,437 (7th Cir. 1991).
  16. ^ United States v. Benson, 67 F.3d 641, 95-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,540 (7th Cir. 1995).
  17. ^ Retrieved on 22 November 2006 from http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp
  18. ^ See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916); text available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&page=1
  19. ^ The statement was found at the caption near Benson's picture at bottom of web page. Retrieved on 22 November 2006 from [5]. As of January 30, 2008, after the issuance of a permanent injunction against Benson (see below), this language apparently was removed.
  20. ^ As quoted in the court decision on April 6, 2009, at entry 58, p. 8 United States v. Benson, case no. 08-1312 and case no. 08-1586, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
  21. ^ 941 F.2d 598, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,437 (7th Cir. 1991).
  22. ^ Memorandum Opinion, p. 14, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
  23. ^ Memorandum Opinion, p. 9, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
  24. ^ Memorandum Opinion, p. 10, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
  25. ^ Memorandum Opinion, p. 2, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
  26. ^ Memorandum Opinion, p. 22, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
  27. ^ Memorandum Opinion, p. 9 & p. 20, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
  28. ^ Permanent Injunction, Jan. 10, 2008, docket entry 116, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
  29. ^ News Release, Federal Court Bars Illinois Man from Promoting Fraudulent Tax Scam; William J. Benson Sold Bogus “Defenses” to Criminal Tax Prosecution, Jan. 11, 2008, U.S. Dep't of Justice, at [6].
  30. ^ Entry 58, p. 14, April 6, 2009, case no. 08-1312 and case no. 08-1586, United States v. Benson, 561 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, no. 09-464 (Nov. 30, 2009).
  31. ^ Entry 58, pp. 8 & 9, April 6, 2009, case no. 08-1312 and case no. 08-1586, United States v. Benson, 561 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, no. 09-464 (Nov. 30, 2009).
  32. ^ Entry 58, p. 18, April 6, 2009, case no. 08-1312 and case no. 08-1586, United States v. Benson, 561 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, no. 09-464 (Nov. 30, 2009).
  33. ^ Cert. denied, no. 09-464 (Nov. 30, 2009).
  34. ^ Press Release, March 6, 2008, "Dansville Man Sentenced For Tax Evasion," Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Michigan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  35. ^ Judgment, March 6, 2008, United States v. Charles Evans Hughes, docket entry 46, case no. 1:07-cr-00085-GJQ, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
  36. ^ Prisoner number 13339-040, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice, at [7].
 

ReferencesEdit

  • Benson, Bill; M. J. Beckman (1985–86). The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax. South Holland, IL (Box 550, South Holland 60473): Constitutional Research Association. OCLC 12357966.
 

External linksEdit

http://www.agentfortruth.com/