$10,000 Reward to prove them wrong. This should be no problem for PD.
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html




http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp

Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.

This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.

After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913). The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "ineffect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.

Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".

Alleged defects in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment

After investigating the history of the 16th Amendment, the following defects were found in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment by the 48 states then existing, three-fourths or 36 of which were needed to ratify it:

01 - Not ratified by state legislature, and so reported

02 - Not ratified by state legislature, but reported as ratified

03 - Missing or incomplete evidence of ratification, but reported as ratified

04 - Failure of Governor or other official to sign, although required by State Constitution

05 - Other violation of State Constitution in ratification process

06 - Other procedural irregularity making ratification doubtful

07 - Approval, but with change in wording, accepted as ratification of original version

08 - Approval, but with change in spelling, accepted as ratification of original version

09 - Approval, but with change in capitalization, accepted as ratification of original version

10 - Approval, but with change in punctuation, accepted as ratification of original version

See the chart here: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp

In the above table, the line "Additional" are the number of states for which that defect is in addition to previously indicated defects, and "Accumulated" is a running total of states with defects, from Defect 01 through 10.

Since 36 states were required to ratify, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the first three defects, arguably the most serious. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.

Note that in the above we are counting Ohio as a state, even though it was not admitted into the Union until 1953 (retroactively, which is expost facto, and unconstitutional). We are not counting the failure to designate the Income Tax Amendment as the "XVII" amendment, since there was arguably a 13th Amendment that was ratified but which is not published in official copies of the Constitution with Amendments, and the number is not necessarily part of the amendment (It wasn't part of the first 10.).

The authority usually cited for the criticality of ratification without errors of spelling, capitalization, or punctuation, is from DOCUMENT NO. 97-120, of the 97TH CONGRESS, 1st Session, entitled How Our Laws Are Made, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr. Esq., Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives, in which the comparable exactitude in which bills must be concurred under federal legislative rules is detailed:

...Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk. (at 34) (emphasis added).

When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies (either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both bodies to the conference report) a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.

The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk... must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken. (at 45) (emphasis added)

It should be noted that in his report on ratifications of the Income Tax Amendment to then Secretary of State Philander Knox, the Solicitor of the Department of State, recognized many of the defects of wording, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, although he seemed ignorant of the constitutional and procedural defects at the state level. He also pointed out similar defects in the ratifications of the 14th and 15th Amendments. Therefore, Knox had plenty of clues to the problems in the ratifications, sufficient to justify that he inquire into the matter further and demand corrective action by the states. Because he failed to do so means that we now have adopted and enforced legislation for more than 80 years that is plainly unconstitutional, requiring not only that it be repealed, but that all the funds collected be refunded.

The states could, of course, re-ratify the Income Tax Amendment, but they could not do so retroactively. That would allow re-enactment of the Internal Revenue Code, and re-issuance of all the supporting regulations, but none of them could apply to the period prior to proper ratification of the amendment and due notices of the regulations.

Readers are invited to independently confirm or refute these results and to similarly investigate the ratifications of other constitutional amendments, both at the federal and state levels, and to issue similar reports on what they find.

First 9/11 conspiracies and now income tax protests? What other lunatic websites have you been reading?

If it is so crazy then you can be $10,000 richer.

http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html

I'm all for getting rid of federal income tax.

Apparently you missed it; the federal income tax was highly controversal. I haven't paid income taxes to the feds since 1994; I don't even file tax reports anymore, and it's legal.

Best of luck with that.

How about that $10,000 reward??

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification

Do I get my $10,000 now or when I get my tax refund in the spring?

I know it may be tough reading (and it might tell you something you don't want to hear), but this site pretty much knocks down any arguments that tax protesters have about teh federal income tax.

Enjoy!

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

This post tells me you can't prove them wrong.

Tells me you can't read, or don't have the patience to read stuff from people who actually know something about the law when it differs from the story that you prefer, told by someone who can barely form a coherent paragraph.

Tell me how that $10,000 reward works out for you.

See, I'm not deluded, so I'm not EXPECTING it to work out.

So, direct taxation unconstitutional?


OH MY GOD WHATEVER MIGHT WE DO ABOUT THAT???


PERHAPS PASS AN AMENDMENT???

PD, I dig how the link you posted made an analogy between 'tax protesters' and 'holocaust denier'. Talk about loaded language. Good lord, why is it so important that everyone pay their taxes and accept that the federal government has the right to demand them?

Hey, if you think taxes are unfair, fine. Take it up with your congressional representatives, vote for people to reform the tax system, whatever. But to deny that the federal income tax was ever constitutionally imposed is just like being a holocaust denier. It is seeing only what you want to see, and turning a blind eye to mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Like it or not, the government has the right to tax your income.

Ok, so denying the validity of the 16th ammendment is denying a historical event that has much analysis in its favor. However, denying that the Federal government SHOULD have that right is a whole nother story. Bringing in the holocaust or say, Nazi Germany into most analogies seems to cheapen the argument. In this case the intent doesn't appear to be the same magnitude of immorality, and therefore it doesn't seem to fit for me.

http://joebanister.blogspot.com/

By Vin Suprynowicz
June 21, 1999

http://www.buildfreedom.com/suprynowicz.htm

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THE LIBERTARIAN

Joseph R. Banister spoke June 12 in Las Vegas; he will speak again July 1 & 2 at the National Press Club in Washington.

Joe Banister graduated from San Jose State University in 1986 with a degree in accounting; he became a Certified Public Accountant in 1991. After several years of auditing and tax work, he decided "bean-counting was boring" and decided to follow several relatives and friends into law enforcement.

"I was sworn in on Nov. 15, 1993 as an IRS special agent," Banister recalls. "I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

No one would have taken Special Agent Banister for a misfit at federal law enforcement training -- he was twice elected president of his training class. After receiving his gun and badge, he quickly rose to become asset forfeiture coordinator for the Central California District of the IRS.

"I knew the IRS was unpopular and no one liked them," Banister smiles wanly. "But I'm a nice guy, and I figured maybe I could put a nicer face on things."

Then, in December of 1996, Mr. Banister recalls listening to a radio show on KSFO Radio in San Francisco, hosted by Geoff Metcalf, whom the agent "had always considered to be a very reputable and honest talk show host who could back up everything he broadcast with facts and evidence."

That day, host Metcalf's guest was Devvy Kidd, a woman "who made some allegations about the federal income tax that astonished me." Ms. Kidd alleged, among other things, "that the federal income tax was voluntary."

Banister sent for the information Ms. Kidd was offering. On his own time, using up vacation days and on his home telephone, Special Agent Banister then used all his skills as a professional investigator to look into the three allegations which he found "the most profound and unbelievable":

1) Due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, filing of federal income tax returns and payment of federal income tax is voluntary, not mandatory.

2) The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which precipitated the federal income tax, was never legally ratified.

3) The U.S. government finances its operations from the unconstitutional creation of fiat money, not with revenue from income taxes.

Agent Banister spent 1997 reading books like Edward Griffin's 1994 The Creature from Jeckyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. He investigated the case of tax protestor Bill Conklin of Denver, Colo. (author of the book Why No One Is Required to File Income Tax Returns And What You Can Do About It), who actually won his court case in the 10th District.

Some of this started to make sense to agent Banister. After all, "One thing I was required to do when I spoke to a suspect, I had to read him the IRS version of their Miranda rights. So I knew about this Fifth Amendment business, because anything you say or put in writing can be used against you."

So how could citizens be required to file tax forms, Banister wondered, submitting information which could be used against them in a court of law?

Banister says he called Bill Benson of South Holland, Ill., author of the book The Law That Never Was. Banister says he was moved by Benson's trust (the author contends not a single state ever ratified the 16th Amendment) when Benson mailed the investigator -- still a badge-carrying IRS agent -- not a copy, but one of two original documents recording the vote of the state Senate of Kentucky against ratification of the tax amendment.

"Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as one of the states that did ratify," Banister adds. He was thus unable to dismiss such claims as easily as he had expected to.

The conclusion of Special Agent Banister of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division? "I truly believe the income tax is voluntary for most people. They kept asking, 'Show me the statute that makes you liable,' and I couldn't find it.

"My attorney said, get all your facts and evidence together in one place. ... So I put together a report. I felt, I've got to tell my superiors that after two-and-a-half years of research, I can't refute what these people are saying. I've got to find out what is constitutional and what is not, what is mandatory and what is not. ... I carry a gun and a badge; we put people in prison for failure to file income tax returns."

Agent Banister gave his report to his boss, asking that it be forwarded on through the district chief to IRS Commissioner Rosati. "I need someone to show me where I'm wrong in my analysis," he reports telling his superiors. "If I find the IRS to be deceitful, if they can't show me where I'm wrong, I'll have to resign."

From the routing slip attached to his report when it was returned to him, Agent Banister knows that his report went at least as high as the head of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Washington, D.C.

But the only response he received from his superiors "was a memorandum to the effect that 'We will not be responding to your report, and we will supply you with the proper paperwork to submit your resignation.' "

Joe Banister turned in his gun and badge, his bulletproof vest and computer and pager, and said goodbye to the Internal Revenue Service on Feb. 25, 1999, the anniversary of the date when in 1913 U.S. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the 16th Amendment had been ratified.

Joe Banister says he resigned rather than betray a sacred oath to "tens of millions of good Americans who simply want to know what's theirs and what's the government's, and to see a bright, shining line between the two."

Joe Banister's 85-page book, Investigating the Federal Income Tax -- a Preliminary Report is available by sending $20 cash or money order plus $2 shipping, payable to "Sunburst" (no personal checks) to Freedom Law School, 13211 Myford Road No. 332, Tustin, CA 92782 (tel. 714-838-2896.)

For information on his Washington appearance over the July 4 weekend, call 518-656-3578. Joe Banister is also scheduled to speak in Burbank, Calif. on July 10; call 714-838-2896. The Banister web site is http://www.freedomabovefortune.com.

Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is author of the new book Send in the Waco Killers.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#5th


It's a shame that a man who can't understand the legal distinctions between civila dn criminal proceedings could be twice elected president of his class at IRS training.



If no states ratified the Amendment, then how come no states PROTESTED when the Amendment was declared to have been ratified? Wouldn't you think that one of the hundreds of legislators around the country who voted against this might have raised some sort of objection either through official channels or in the press?


Just like the 9/11 bunkum, I can't help but think of the axiom, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This guy isn't smart enough to understand the civil/criminal distinction or to grasp the illogic of an unratified Constitutional Amendment being enacted without so much as a peep of protest, so why should I think that he would have the skills to read the IRC to find the enforcement statute?


No personal checks? I guess he wouldn't want the IRS coming after him for the income, eh?

shocking.