Reposting content not on ATS - The 16th Ammendment was never Ratified by any STATE

This is Joe Bannister, Bill Benson - has the proof. and Joe quit after he saw the letter trying to purchase those documents from Bill Benson - if they were not real - why does the IRS want them and why would they bribe him to get them... He Refused of Coarse...

video.google.com...

another video you probably never saw:
www.youtube.com...
How they bought America

another video you probably have seen - but posted here for those who
have not seen it yet. "Aaron Russo and the IRS Commisioner
interview: good stuff....
video.google.com...



[edit on 9-5-2008 by 888LetsRoll]

[edit on 9-5-2008 by 888LetsRoll]

I am unable to watch YouTube videos on this computer...

...could you give a brief rundown of their supposed proof that no state ratified the 16th Amendment?

Basically, a long time ago. A Patriot Bill Benson - went to every state capital and went through their Archives - he wanted to read the debate about the 16th Ammendment - after a few states that did not ratify the 16th Ammendment were recorded as approving the 16th. got him concerned something wasn't right. so he went to the other states and got official copy's of each states ruling. and he went to all 48 states and could not find a single state that ratified the 16th Ammendment - Joe Bannister was assigned to work Bill over and The Opposite Happend - Joe Bannister - EX - IRS because he found out.. but dont take his word for it... check it out yourself... I did and Joe is Correct - Bill is Correct -- I personally like Kentucky's response ...

the other video is The Federal Reserve Scam - How it happened and what it means --- just a nother movie on the FRS

[edit on 9-5-2008 by 888LetsRoll]

I have to bump this one, to give all americans a chance to review the facts of this matter... IRS and there right to collect taxes, not authorized in doing so.

This is one of those great theories that rises up every so often with new victims.

This can be bottomed lined real fast, but the "believers" will not accept the real facts.

It's the law. Every court case has found this to be legal, regardless of appeals. Somehow, appeals are left out of the evidence when presenting this argument.

EVERY amendment to The Constitution has been legally ratified and is fully lawful.

EOM... continue trolling...

well, where is your evidence ... ?
I have Sandy Cohn, IRS Commisionary on Tape
Arron Russo on Tape
several Presidents of the United States revealing it
where is your proof...

If the amendment was ratified, there would have to be a paper trail... documents proving this.

Where are they? Post 'em.

Not he said she said stuff either... I want names, numbers, dates, scans.



A number of researchers have attempted to do this, and found nothing but empty files and dead ends. We just have to take the government's word for it that this amendment is ratified.


But how about the supreme court's decision stating that "The 16th amendment granted congress no new powers of taxation"? What does this mean? It meant that by the legal wording of the constitution and the amendment, it changed nothing. Only in the minds of the ignorant public does it look like we can be taxed on our "income".


What people don't know is that "income" in legal terms does not mean "wages earned in exchange for labor". It means strictly "profit on corporate activity."


Your "income" is not income in terms of the law. It is an exchange, not a profit. Constitutionally, government cannot tax individuals on their exchanges. If so, then when I give you an apple for your orange, an IRS agent should show up and take part of each.


Taxing your labor is simply creating a percentage of slavery. If you are taxed 0%, you are free. If you are taxed 100% you are a total slave. Right now we are taxed about 35%. TAXED ON AN EXCHANGE.


If your wife cooks you a dinner, and you give her the food to cook, do you owe the government part of that food you exchanged with her? And does she owe the government part of the labor she put into cooking it?

If it sounds absurd to tax simple household exchanges like this, then how much more sense does it make to tax the exchange of your time, effort, and talent for compensation in terms of pay? It might only make sense to most people because money is involved.

But isn't money really just an exchange? Think about it.

It's all a big scam to confiscate the wealth and labor of the people. Theft and slavery, but under a different name.

This scam is as old as time. People in power using their power to enforce greater subjugation of the people.


Did you know that our country survived for 137 years without an income tax? If the income tax is so necessary, then how did we get by so long without it?

Here's something a lot of people don't know about taxes.


- Your income tax dollars buy you nothing. They pay for no government services. What they pay for is the interest on a debt to the privately-owned "Federal" "Reserve" bank, which creates money out of thin air, loans it to our government, and charges interest on it. The Grace Commission Report which President Ronald Reagan had set up in the early 80's reported this very fact.

- All the services the public expects from government are paid for by legal taxes (income tax being ILLEGAL). Roads are paid for by gas and tire taxes. Schools by property tax. Federal Government by corporate tax.

- The income tax and the Federal Reserve were created the same year. Not a coincidence.

- The people that created this legislation were not government employees, or bureaucrats... but rather very wealthy bankers. Hmmm.... you don't think they would have written it to work for themselves and not the people, do you?


An excellent video on the subject:

Google Video Link

This sunject was posted on ATS years ago, but it is worthy of being redone. In the last few weeks, I've seen this mentioned in many of the videos on various subjects related tot he NWO, Shadow Government and secret goings on by other groups.

The information available to check it out is plentiful, and the federal income tax which when introduced was on a voluntary basis. The people could voluntarily pay it, it was never mandatory. But since no one told the public, they just "assumed" they had to pay.

with all the govt shills on this site - you would think one would stand up for mafia strong arm protection rackett as a good thing that we pay the queen of england for being our owners. if you believe the facts - that is...

Originally posted by ianr5741
But how about the supreme court's decision stating that "The 16th amendment granted congress no new powers of taxation"? What does this mean? It meant that by the legal wording of the constitution and the amendment, it changed nothing.

Actually, you are completely twisting what the Supreme Court said in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co:

''...Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary 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."

And in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.:

"It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived"...After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital."





[edit on 12-5-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by 888LetsRoll
Basically, a long time ago. A Patriot Bill Benson - went to every state capital and went through their Archives - he wanted to read the debate about the 16th Ammendment - after a few states that did not ratify the 16th Ammendment were recorded as approving the 16th. got him concerned something wasn't right. so he went to the other states and got official copy's of each states ruling. and he went to all 48 states and could not find a single state that ratified the 16th Ammendment..

When did Benson do all these? Color me skeptical, but...

Was it before or after he supposedly contracted encephalitis with seizure disorder and filed for disability benefits, saying he was completely unable to work?

Ask him yourself, he is easy to locate and contact.

If you ask me, I think you are here to destroy Truth. so you will not get research assistance from me. have a nice day -

[edit on 12-5-2008 by 888LetsRoll]

Originally posted by 888LetsRoll
Ask him yourself, he is easy to locate and contact.

If you ask me, I think you are here to destroy Truth. so you will not get research assistance from me. have a nice day -

Oh, that is cute, really.

All this really says is that you do not have a strong argument; that is why you run at the first hint of disagreement.

And please, do not lie to us. You have no interest in the truth. If you did, you would discuss the subject, not accuse someone of being "here to destroy the Truth." You do not want the truth, you want to forward an agenda and sit in an echo-chamber.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by SaviorComplex]

I dont plan on arguing - I let the facts stand on there own merit

Originally posted by 888LetsRoll
I dont plan on arguing - I let the facts stand on there own merit

And what are the facts?

Did Benson, or did he not, attempt to commit disability fraud?

Did Benson, or did he not, actually go from state-to-state and "prove" these states did not ratify the 16th Amendment. (Fact is: he didn't, and they did ratify it.)

Benson argues because there were mispellings, problems with punctuation and grammar when each state voted to ratify the 16th Amendment that they didn't actually ratify it.

As the Seventh Circuit said in the United States v. Thomas:

"Thomas [who was using the Benson arguments] insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, 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.

"Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments."

reply to post by SaviorComplex


You seem to have a firm grasp of the law. Can you tell me why citizen groups shouldn't try to put a referendum on the ballot in they're states that allow it to repeal the consent and ratification of the 16th. Is this possible or does only congress have the ability to approach the subject? I've always wondered why anti-tax groups haven't tried this in those states that allow referendum. If you know please tell us because it might be a way to force our government to rethink raising our taxes in the future!

Zindo

[edit on 5/12/2008 by ZindoDoone]

I'm going to break one of my own rules about these types of discussions.

Years ago, probably before many of the members of this board were alive, I had the pleasure of spending some time with a guy named Henry Beach. Any decent anti-tax person should know whom I speak of. Just search Henry Beach with Posse or Anti-tax.

I know far more than what I want to say in this thread as I have heard literally all the arguments. A person just needs an education to figure this out.

I have no clue who this Benson guy is. Just another pretender as far as I'm concerned.

I will say this one more time. Everything the government does, with regards to taxes, is legal. There are times someone will tell you something and you just have to believe him. This is one of those times.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Zindo, look into a Constitutional Convention and how to set that up. This is what it would take. Congress could do it but won't because of the money involved.

Some groups have approached the laws in this way.

Like I've said all along - I'll let the facts speak for themselves.
and if he committed Fraud - prosecute him...
but the documents are real.... otherwise, he is guilty of a lot more than Fraud... seems he has the state seals intact... enjoy a fair fight in court - cuz, he has the goods and I dare you call him on it... Joe did... see where it got Joe and about 60 or so IRS investigators quit when he did... so they all quit their jobs on a LIE...
I dont think so,
The $50,000 still is unclaimed --- earn a fast $50K.... prove this is a scam, shame or any other word other than the TRUTH.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by 888LetsRoll]

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Can you tell me why citizen groups shouldn't try to put a referendum on the ballot in they're states that allow it to repeal the consent and ratification of the 16th. Is this possible or does only congress have the ability to approach the subject?

Yes, of course. While every single Amendment to the Constitution, to date, has originated in Congress, the Framers did put in a provision to allow states to call for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. 2/3s of the state legislatures have to agree to call a convention. Then the states may select delegates to represent them at the convention. If the proposed amendment is agreed upon at the convention, it then goes to the states. The states may then either have their legislature vote on it, or submit it to the voters as a referendum. If it passes in 2/3s of the state, it becomes the law of the land.

However, such a situation has not occured in 1787.