> > Sen. Orrin Hatch's Former Attorney: 16th Amendment Not Ratified!

> http://www.devvy.com/warren_20000602.html

>

> For a graphic image of the letter see http://www.devvy.com/warrenltr.html>

WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D. Attorney at Law May 5, 2000 > Mr. William J. Benson > Constitutional Scholar > 1128 East 160th Place > South Holland, IL 60473 > >

Dear Mr. Benson: >

> You may address me simply as Warren and I'll call you Bill. > My first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of > work you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of > factual data--over 17,000 pages of certified government documents > from each of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the > National Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, > which includes your two books, is truly monumental. > >

In case you wish to know a little about my background, let me > give you a brief overview. I was honored to serve my nation in > World War II as a Naval Aviator. Since my college career at the > University of Rochester had been interrupted by the war, I went > back to the U. of R. and obtained my A.B. degree in history. That > was followed by a B.S. in accounting. By then I was married and we > moved to the Washington, D.C. area so that my wife could continue > her college work while I attended law school. Upon receiving my > law degree, I was honored to be chosen for the first class of Honor > Law Graduates at the Justice Department. (This program was started > in 1953 while Eisenhower was president.) Because of my law and > accounting background, I moved to the legal department at the > General Accounting Office. After 5 years as a government attorney, > I left for the private sector, where I have been ever since. Two > years of that time was spent in a law firm and the rest has been > working in the lobbying profession. >

> Before going to the subject of your books--the 16th Amendment > to the Constitution of the United States of America was not > properly ratified--I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the > United States Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be > unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust > Company (158 U.S. 601). Since our forefathers who established our > form of government (a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the > federal power into three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and > administrative), it was clearly within the court's discretion to > render their verdict in the Pollock case. >

> The Supreme Court's decision in that case can only be changed > by one of two method: >

> 1. The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could > reverse the Pollock case; or, >

> 2. An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct > income tax could be passed by a vote of two-thirds > of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the > legislatures of three-fourths of the States. >

> Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of > State has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and > the Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or > rejected. >

> The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the > second alternative. >

> In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at > least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even > though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it > had been properly ratified. When only four states of the required > 38 ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view > of the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution? > Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court, > what was the legal framework upon which the current income tax law > is based? >

> Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not > a constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted > above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence, > the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Furthermore, I > believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in > constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their > opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. > Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not > properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last > question is a real tough one because of the politics involved. > Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought > before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you > even visualize the reaction of the Members of Congress? >

> Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual > data about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am > hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step > and suggest what should be done now. >

> Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to > your country. >

> /Warren S. Richardson/ >

> Sworn and subscribed to before me this > 5th day of May, 2000

> > Mary M. Challstrom > Notary Public > My Commission Expires 6/12/00

> > P.S.: Since a personal letter cannot be distributed, or even > shown, to anyone other the recipient without permission of the > author, I hereby authorize you to show it (not publish it) to other > people at your discretion. > > ------ >

> Editor's notes: > > (1) The statement in the P.S. is not correct as a matter of law. A > personal letter belongs to the recipient, together with any copyright, > unless a copyright notice appears in the document. >

> (2) A summary of Benson's book The Law That Never Was can be found at

> http://www.constitution.org/ica_ltnw.htm >

> =================================================================== > Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 > 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 06/02/00 Time: 14:54:51 > http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org

-- ... (...@...com), June 03, 2000

Answers

Great links page. Only "the Paula" and "The Gary" are missing.

http://www.constitution.org/cs_organ.htm

-- Anon (anon@anon.anon), June 03, 2000.

I do hope that anyone who reads this latest twist from the Endless Tax Protestor Circus doesn't plan to use this defense if the IRS charges them with fraud or tax evasion. In every case to date where this argument has been used, the tax protester has lost.

The 16th Admendment is LAW. It has been recognized as law by the courts since right after its passage, and in dozens of cases since.

Interested parties can start with these links:

• Evan's Tax Protestor's FAQ
• The Tax Protestor Hall Of Fame
• Quatloos: Inane tax protestor theories which never, ever win as developed by the pro-wrestling crowd

Please don't waste money on books, seminars and web sites from people who claim that (a) the 16th Amendment was never ratified, (b) the IRS has no "statuatory authority" to collect (or assess, or whatever), (c) any other tax protestor's argument, regardless of incarnation, wind speed or Flavor Of The Week.

You have to pay taxes, period. It's the LAW. If you disagree, that's too bad, because you'll eventually find yourself in front of a judge who will TELL you that it's the law.

If you've been listening to these tax protestors, you may even think, "hey, wait a minute ... I thought the IRS would do anything in its power to keep this from going in front a judge, because they know they'll lose ... ?!?"

(And the judge will say, "guess what? It ALREADY HAS been in front of judge. They've already LOST. And now, not only do you owe taxes and penalties, you get to pay a $1500 fine for wasting the court's time with frivilous, groundless and baseless legal arguments, too!")

You believe crap like this, or from Banister, or from any of the dozens of other Tax Protestors, at your peril. You have been warned.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 03, 2000.

As much as it pains me to admit it, I agree with Stephen Poole. Well, let me qualify that. I don't know whether or not the sixteenth amendment was ever ratified validly. I do know, however, that it doesn't make any difference. The federal government doesn't care about the law any more, if it ever did. They will do whatever they like to you, whether or not they have any constitutional authority to do so. Therefore, it is very unwise to rely on legalistic arguments in areas where the federal government has shown repeatedly that it will gladly trample on your rights; even if you are right as a matter of law, it won't matter.

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 04, 2000.

Hey Poole, what law? If you can name a law that requires all Americans to pay tax, you could end up with a big bundle of money. There are numerous websites offering big rewards to anyone finding such a law. Like $50,000!!!! Either put up or shut up!

Sheople Poole, you have no clue about the tax scam.

-- ... (...@...com), June 04, 2000.

Well. It seems our old friend 'a' understands the law exactly as well as he understood y2k. And is equally likely to realize this.

I can't help but wonder what 'a' does for a living, where being totally and belligerantly wrong about everything pays a living wage. Maybe he collects Earned Income Credit from the government he despises, like his hero Milne?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 2000.

Steve Heller,

If you truly believe what you posted above, then you are saying that you are a slave. It must have been a similar feeling that prompted the American Revolution.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 04, 2000.

J. -- actually, until not long before the Revolution, the Americans were good English citizens. They got pissed off because the British decided to tax them for the cost of fighting the recently concluded French and Indian War. The object was not the taxes as such, but the fact that they were levied directly from England, rather than, say, indicating to the States that they'd have to raise part of the cost of an Army if they wanted the protection it offered -- hence the slogan, "no taxation without representation."

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 04, 2000.