Democrats do not equal Socialists!, page 6

reply to post by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified...

FAIL Benson's 'findings' convice absolutely no one, except those who are predisposed to tax fraud. Notably in 'United States v Thomas' the court found:

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. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

I'll cut and paste from Wikipedia's discussion of Benson's own legal problems:

Benson was unsuccessful with his Sixteenth Amendment argument when he had his own legal problems. He was prosecuted for tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns. The court rejected his Sixteenth Amendment "non-ratification" argument in United States v. Benson.[12] William J. Benson was convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns in connection with over $100,000 of unreported income, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation.[13]

On December 17, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Benson's non-ratification argument constituted a "fraud perpetrated by Benson" that had "caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources."[14] 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."[15] 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.[16] The court granted an injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 prohibiting Benson from promoting the theories in Benson's "Reliance Defense Package" (containing the non-ratification argument), which the court referred to as "false and fraudulent advice concerning the payment of federal taxes."[17][18]

Benson appealed that decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also ruled against Benson. 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.[19]

The Court of Appeals also ruled that the government could obtain a ruling ordering Benson to turn his customer list over to the government.[20] Benson petitioned the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rejected his petition on November 30, 2009.[21]

Similar Sixteenth Amendment arguments have been uniformly rejected by other United States Circuit courts in other cases including Sisk v. Commissioner;[22] United States v. Sitka;[23] and United States v. Stahl.[24] The non-ratification argument has been specifically deemed legally frivolous in Brown v. Commissioner;[25] Lysiak v. Commissioner;[26] and Miller v. United States.[27]

So:

Bill Benson is a convicted tax fraud cheat
Bill Benson has knowingly charged 'clients' for advice he knew to be fraudulent.
His fraudulent claims have been uniformly rejected by every court they have appeared in
Those fraudulent claims have been officially and specifically deemed legally frivolous (meaning anyone attempting to argue them in the future can be sanctioned for wasting the courts time)

And you want people to take your Constitution bashing seriously by pushing this filth?

What I don't get is how you seem to so aggressively defend that UnConstitutional legislation, as proper and correctly abiding by the Constitution, which it does not.

The 16th Amendment is not legislation, it is part of the Constitution, the Constitution is not UnConstitutional. Yes, I most certainly will agressively defend the Constitution against fraudulent distortions.

I am not aggressively defending the IRS Act. I am promoting the motto of the ATS forum that you are participating in: I am denying ignorance. I don't understand why you don't want to understand the truth about the IRS Act. The so-called 'hidden truth' you pointed me to was shown to be demonstrably false in less than 10 minutes of searching. Why do want to aggressively promote a lie? I don't care if you like the Income Tax system or not, I do care about people promoting fraudulent ideas. If you depended on WhatIsTaxed to inform you about your tax situation, you could very well end up in jail like your friend Bill Benson.

I really don't care if you can find a single quote from Thomas Jefferson which contradicts the sentiment expressed in the Constitution.

T. Jefferson doesn't contradict the sentiment in the Constitution. You were the one who said the Constitution was contradicting the sentiment of the 'Founding Fathers'. I merely pointed out that Mr. Jefferson disagreed with your opinion. You are free to find other (legitimate) quotes from other Founding Fathers that back up your opinion with objections to an income tax.

Quoting Jefferson does not change a single letter of what is written in the Constitution. Period.

That is correct. Especially since he didn't write any of it. But he did argue strongly for it, including the part that provided for it to be amended when future generations found it lacking.

Both the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment aka the IRS Act are bogus, unConstitutional and frauds against the People of the United States.

Not one word of that sentence is true.

I'm not really interested in discussing the Fed; its like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It isn't UnConstitutional or it would have been found to be so in the almost 100 years it has been operating. I agree there are valid questions about its structure, but there hasn't been any successful challenges to it, have there?

The 16th Amendment and the IRS Act are not the same thing. One is part of the Constitution, and the other is legislation produced by Congress as authorized to do so by the Constitution. Conflating the two is demonstrably ignorant.

Are you a shill or a fool?

Neither. I am an American, proud of my Constituion, and doing my little insufficient bit to protect the Constitution from people like you.

I am an American who is tired of people like you:

who won't read the Constitution to see what it says, but feel compelled to lecture everyone on their fantasies of what it says.
who can't tell the difference between legislation and the Constitution.
who are aggressively trying to convince the public that the Constitution is 'just a piece of paper' with no more gravitas than a law passed by Congress
who are aggressively trying to convince the public that laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are somehow 'bogus' if it doesn't match your political viewpoint as told to you by your favorite TV talking head.
who call the Congress unrepresentative swill when its political viewpoint doesn't match your political viewpoint as told to you by your favorite TV talking head.
who call the President unqualified if his political viewpoint doesn't match your political viewpoint as told to you by your favorite TV talking head.
who are aggressively trying to destroy the Constitution by subverting its authority in the minds of the American public.

Well guess what: it ain't gonna work.