Posted on 05/31/2006 9:11:55 AM PDT by LostInTheWoods
In my column this past September, I reported on the effort by the feds to silence Bill Benson and continue persecuting this man because he holds a truth so dangerous to the banking cartel, they will go to any length to shut him up. If you are unfamiliar with this case, please click here for background. Why do I refer to this IRS persecution as a threat to the banking cartel? In 1913, a thoroughly corrupted and largely ignorant Congress passed the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act. Charles A Lindberg, Sr., (elected to Congress 1909-1916.) said at the time:
"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Act the invisible government by the Money Powers, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigations, will be legalized. The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on depressions will be scientifically created."
In order to have a feeding artery to supply these blood suckers, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was declared ratified even though it clearly was not. We know that not a penny of your money stolen under a law that doesn't exist funds a single function of the federal government - it all goes to pay down the congressionally created national debt, "transfer payments" to the communist UN and a million other unconstitutional expenditures to foreign countries. Although the courts have ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment did not bestow any new taxing powers, the IRS still uses the Sixteenth Amendment to justify stealing the fruits of your labors...
(Excerpt) Read more at thelawthatneverwas.com ...
The action of improperly ratifying an amendment does, however, fit snugly into that particular timeframe. After Roosevelt smashed the establishment to bits, Taft and friends were desperately trying to reestablish their power. Let’s not forget that 1913 was also the year of the Federal Reserve Act.
I am very interested in where this will all go. After reading the articles and legal briefs, it seems the Fed has backed it self into a corner. If history tells us anything though, in situations like these the government will simply ignore the law and kill whoever opposes it.
If this article has been posted before, forgive me. I did run a search for the title and nothing came up. I decided this was important enough of an issue for FReepers’ eyes.
Be careful or Google will remove all links to any research which would support this information.
sorry..........left my tin foil hat at home.....
http://www.bostonteapartyii.org/jbannister.html
Conspiracy theory from word one. You can tell, because they don't actually say what they're talking about. There are euphamisms all over the place. Even if it's a legitimate issue (I doubt it), the author has to couch it in loaded terms and adjectives instead of letting the reader decide for himself.
How can you call something a conspiracy theory if you haven’t even looked into what the supposed conspiracy is? One article encompassing an issue is not the basis for the argument. The issue is Bill Benson’s research that was diligently collected over a year period and compiled into the book, “The Law That Never Was”.
As for this article, of course it will have loaded words, ITS AN EDITORIAL.
Joe Banister is not the IRS agent I was referring to. His name is Bill Benson.
I am saying it uses conspiracy language and, as such, I really don't care about the rest of it because the author doesn't treat my intellect with respect.
Read the first paragraph and then, based only on that information and nothing else, tell me what the hell he is talking about.
"The Federal Reserve Act was, and still is, hailed as a victory of "democracy" over the "money trust." Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The whole central bank concept was engineered by the very group it was supposed to strip of power. The myth that the "money trust" had been defrocked should have been exploded when Paul Warburg was appointed to the first Federal Reserve Board -- a board which was handpicked by "Colonel" House. Paul Warburg relinquished his $500,000 a year job as a Kuhn, Loeb partner to take a $12,000 a year job with the Federal Reserve. The "accidentalists" who teach in our universities would have you believe that he did it because be was a "public spirited citizen." And the man who served as Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank during its early critical years was the same Benjamin Strong of the Morgan interests, who accompanied Warburg, Davison, Vanderlip et al. to Jekyl Island, Georgia, to draft the Aldrich Bill.
How powerful is our "central bank?" The Federal Reserve controls our money supply and interest rates, and thereby manipulates the entire economy-creating inflation or deflation, recession or boom, and sending the stock market up or down at whim. The Federal Reserve is so powerful that Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, maintains:
"In the United States today we have in effect two governments... We have the duly constituted Government... Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution."
Neither Presidents, Congressmen nor Secretaries of the Treasury direct the Federal Reserve! In the matters of money, the Federal Reserve directs them! The uncontrolled power of the "Fed" was admitted by Secretary of the Treasury David M. Kennedy in an interview for the May 5, 1969, issue of U.S. News & World Report:
"Q. Do you approve of the latest credit-tightening moves?
A. It's not my job to approve or disapprove. It is the action of the Federal Reserve."
And, curiously enough, the Federal Reserve System has never been audited and has firmly resisted all attempts by the House Banking Committee to have it audited."
- Gary Allen, "None Dare Call It Conspiracy"
*** Read it for free here:
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=NoneDare03&Entity=StandardOil
The link contains a pretty thorough savaging of the so-called "never ratified" argument.
Local Rules 56.1(a)(3)(B) and (b)(3)(B) require the government to controvert any additional facts that require denial of summary judgment. Failure to controvert results in the additional facts being deemed admitted. The issue before the court is quite simple: whether Benson’s speech that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified is in actuality true or false. If his speech is true, his “tax advice” is not “false and fraudulent” and the government loses its case. Paragraphs 31 – 51 of Benson’s statement of material facts undeniably, and conclusively, show an insufficient number of states ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment to allow it to become a part of the United States Constitution. Benson’s speech is absolutely true as a matter of fact.
The government has not, and cannot, controvert Benson’s facts. Instead, it has imposed spurious, frivolous objections to the facts themselves. Whether or not Benson’s speech is true is the very issue and subject matter of this civil action. How do facts that conclusively provide the answer to that question become irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous? They don’t, and Plaintiff’s argument suggesting they do is patently without merit.
Case 1:04-cv-07403 Document 56 Filed 12/20/2005
Idiots who have attempted Benson's defense in court have batted .000 and had the same results as Benson himself -- convictions for tax evasion. In the first of these cases, United States v. Thomas the Seventh Circuit held dispelled Benson's groundless assertion that the 16th Amendment was never ratified because some of the versions ratified had typos or insubstantial changes to the language of the amendment. The Seventh Circuit commented:
Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.
Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same test, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
Also see http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm for point-by-point refuatations of Benson's claims.
BWAHAHAHA - I knew IT!!!!
The FED and the income tax go hand in hand...The GOV borrows from the FED, the GOV is in debt and charges the american citizen thier "dues" to pay off the debt.
That's how it works. In order to get the greedy GOV off your income, vote those guys out... still not going to happen anytime soon.
The 13th admend was properly ratified at that time, though we may not like it. The states that agreed saw a potential to get other forms of revenue through this tax code.
I'm sorry but your source for debunking Benson doesn't even refute the proper arguments that Benson is making.
For instance Quatloons posts:
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). Truth: This is not true as presented. The governor at that time had only to RECOMMEND the amendment for passage, not physically transmit to the legistlature.
The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it. Truth: Again, not true as presented. The legislature of Kentucky as a whole passed the proposed amendment after the correction was made. In fact, the Kentucky Senate voted to reject the entire sentence suggested by the governor, but accepted the change when the governor made a change in sentence structure.
Arguments presented by Benson:
The federal government claims Kentucky was the second state to ratify the 16th 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.
They're not even arguing the same point!
If you would like, I can continue on. However, if we argue all we accomplish is a bunch of nothing. I understand your point, and will continue to look into it. Take some time yourself though, and actually research Mr. Benson's claims, instead of relying someone else's interpretation of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.