from the source In the end, Benson had assembled an irrefutable mountain of evidence showing that during the final days of the William Howard Taft administration in 1913, the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared by the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander Knox, to have been properly ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures.
This is opinion, not fact. The facts of the matter will apparently be decided in court. Further, I have to ask - If, as I am willing to bet (and I am a poor person who is very frugal with his spending), any court's final decision is against Benson, and his position that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared by the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander Knox, to have been properly ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures, will you then accept what the government says as the truth, or does the truth need to agree with you in order to be the truth?
Posts: 17551 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
How is it "obvious"? Is it that I don't automatically accept someone's opinion as fact? All I have seen is what you and Benson claim to be Kentucky's resolution. I have not seen any evidence brought forth by the Department of Justice. I hope you don't mind if I wait until I see all the evidence. Generally, that is what is done in a trial; the jury, or, in this case, the panel of judges, sees all the admissible evidence. I note that in the past, I have read of people not filing any income tax returns, citing what appeared to be the same claim, and none have won that argument in court. However, I will wait to see what this court says. By the way, I notice that you didn't answer my question. Let me re-phrase it. Will you or won't you accept this court's decision as final, pending any appeal?
Posts: 17551 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
What's all the fuss about? Haven't Benson's arguments been tested in court already?
"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.
"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913...." U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986)
it certainly appears that the issue has been ruled upon by several courts. It wouldn't come as any shock if it turns out that the current court is simply putting the final touches on previous rulings and ending any future appeals.
Posts: 17551 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
