Podcast

 

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

 

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 methods:

 

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

 

    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 is 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.

 

Sincerely,

 

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

 

This letter is to be shown only and not to be published as Warren has requested.

Bill Benson

 

 

 

 

 

Candid conversation between Paul Mitchell and a stranger.

 

Several years ago in a coffee shop while talking with a friend

about "tax matters," a man in the adjacent booth overheard our

conversation and asked to join us. The conversation continued, and

centered mainly on IRS abuses.

This gentleman seemed particularly knowledgeable about the

subject and we asked him what he did for a living. He told us his name

and that he was an attorney with the Tax Division of the Department of

Justice in Washington. Naturally, this put us on guard, but he quickly

put us at ease by agreeing in large part with the conclusion we had

drawn.

Reluctantly, I asked him this question, "Why are defendants in

federal district court always asked if they are 'citizens of the United

States'?" He replied without hesitation, "So we can determine

jurisdiction. In many cases the federal court does not have

jurisdiction over a citizen unless they testify they are a citizen of

the United States -- meaning a federal citizen under the 14th

Amendment."

My friend innocently asked, "What's a federal citizen?" The

attorney replied, "That's a person who receives benefits or privileges

or is an alien that has been admitted [naturalized] as a citizen of the

United States."

I quickly interjected, "What if the individual denied being a

citizen of the United States and claimed to be a sovereign citizen of

Oklahoma?" The attorney bowled me over with, "We don't get

jurisdiction."

 

 

 

 

Links

The Grace Commission

Give Me Liberty

What is Taxed

31 Answers to Questions about the IRS

The Law That Never Was